On 5/22/13 6:50 AM, "Ralph Castain" <rhc_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>On May 22, 2013, at 6:37 AM, "Jeff Squyres (jsquyres)"
>> On May 22, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Ralph Castain <rhc_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I have no issues other than wondering why we don't do it in perl given
>>>that we already do all non-shell actions in perl - is it necessary to
>>>intro another language?
>> Because Craig is writing it and he (strongly) prefers Python. That's
>>really the main (only?) reason.
>Hmmm...the issue is that perl usually is included in the distro, but
>python often is not - you have to add that module. IIRC, that was the
>rationale for allowing perl. Others (e.g., me) had played with using
>python before, but switched to perl (a) for the prior rationale, and (b)
>to avoid proliferating language requirements.
>I happen to like python myself, but believe there is some value in
>avoiding adding yet another language to our list of requirements.
I (strongly) agree with Ralph. We made a decision (way back in the 1.0
timeframe) that we would use perl for a scripting language when absolutely
necessary. And even at that, I believe we only require Perl for developer
builds or distribution builds where an assembly file doesn't already exist
for that compiler.
I have no problem with the change to generated bindings from a single
configuration file/set of files, a bit of a problem with that happening at
at configure / build time on a release distribution (we don't require
anything other than /bin/sh at configure / build time right now), and a
strong problem with using Python instead of the Perl that we've previously
agreed we'd use when all other options are unavoidable.
Brian W. Barrett
Scalable System Software Group
Sandia National Laboratories