Re: Why TF? (Was: Open Source does not mean easily re-compile-able)

On 29.12.2024 11:38, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 10:33:43 -0000 (UTC)
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) gabbled:

[...]

 

Rust seems to be, like Python, trying to ingratiate itself into the basic
running of the system, not just be a peripheral "scripting language".

 
Requiring 2 seperate compilers to build anything is an absurdity.

(Disclaimer: I skipped most of the sub-thread, so if that generalizing
sentence was addressing some peculiar (maybe even TB-related) software
specialities you may ignore the rest of my post.)

From my experience it's no "absurdity" but actual (sensible) normality
to use multiple compilers and other software generators in SW-projects.

It seems that depends on the software architecture. It's (IMO) fine to
create libraries that are combined in an "anything" to be compiled with
the (at the time of their creation) most appropriate compiler. It's
also fine if you use a second language as a higher-level intermediate
language. Also if you create the "anything" based on several components
(or subsystems) that are combined. Using separate protocol compilers is
also not uncommon to get the transfer objects and functions. Also using
own compilers for the accompanying parts like documentation is typical.
(All these examples just off the top of my head from some professional
projects that I observed or was engaged with.)

Janis