[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ros-general
Subject:    Re: [ros-general] RE: [ros-dev] Must Read!!!! Msi.dll	and	Bison
From:       Richard Campbell <eek2121 () comcast ! net>
Date:       2004-12-01 5:06:30
Message-ID: 41AD5156.9010500 () comcast ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

You are missing the point.

It is yet another download.

One of opensource's biggest problems is massive dependencies between 
projects.  I really dislike this.  Trying to build one thing often 
requires that you download 20 million other things.  I have nothing 
against bison, but i do have a problem against ROS requiring yet another 
tool.  We've done quite well thus far dependency wise (we don't even 
require MSYS) and i'd like to see it stay that way.

Youness El Andaloussi wrote:

> FYI:
>
> 1) Bison is more or less bison on most versions I tested, even hacked 
> versions I have seen are backward compatible...
> 2) once the bison grammar has been parsed and generated, it compiles 
> anywhere without the need for bison, the "it adds another dependency" 
> argument is not entirely valid unless you want to make changes to the 
> grammar itself
> 3) once something that works exists, nothing the parser to be 
> rewritten in c for optimisation
> 4) so what if it does not come with mingw... mingw does not come with 
> windows either, and bison is much smaller of a download
> 5) Bison remains one of the most standard compiler tools.
>
> Le 03:23 01/12/2004, vous avez écrit:
>
>> FYI:
>>
>> 1) It doesn't come with a standard MingW installation.
>> 2) There are many 'hacked' 'modified' versions of bison floating around.
>> 3)  It adds another dependency.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ros-general mailing list
> ros-general@reactos.com
> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]