Parrot "standard libraries"
James E Keenan
jkeen at verizon.net
Thu Jul 30 11:07:28 UTC 2009
Geoffrey Broadwell wrote:
> TT #593 states that we should expand our current set of "standard
> libraries" and improve the ones we currently have (curses, OpenGL,
> PostgreSQL, SDL, etc.).
> During the most recent #parrotsketch, Allison pointed out that this
> umbrella ticket needs to be broken into separate tickets, one for each
> current library and one for each new library we want to add. We can
> then schedule the individual tickets (and any prerequisites) over the
> next several releases. We need to decide which new libraries we want to
> provide, and what Parrot features they will require.
Thanks for this very well prepared discussion of the library issues.
1. Discussion of the benefits of adding any particular library to our
"standard set" should also include any disadvantages or risks that that
addition may pose. Potential downsides would include: More complexity
in configuration? Slows down the executables? Bigger memory footprint?
Perhaps we should set some minimum criterion of benefits over risks that
a library would have to meet before it is considered a standard part of
this virtual machine.
2. And if we were to develop such a benefit/risk criterion, we should
probably apply it to the libraries for which we *already* probe during
the 'config::auto' steps. Most of those steps were added before I
joined the Parrot project. The fact that we probe for them indicates
that at some point in the past someone (with a commit bit) made a case
for including them, but what risks they might entail and whether they
bring a net benefit to Parrot I simply cannot say.
More information about the parrot-dev