Re: Compiling LUA

[Miles Bader <miles@...>]

steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> writes:
> I do appreciate (as a consumer) the ./configure make install universe,
> but why does it have to be so _ugly_?   Also, not all operating
> systems are POSIX, apparently.

BTW, note that ./configure is an interface definition; many projects use
autoconf/automake to implement configure because they make it pretty
easy, but configure it does not imply use of autoconf and/or automake.
[For tiny projects, I've often written configure as a simple shell
script without using autoconf.]

> Now, if Lua was used, autoconf-like processing could be so much more
> elegant, and perhaps even faster.  As much as (ba)sh is the prince of
> shells, it is a very awkward _programming_ language.  (There, I've
> said it)

In general sure, but in the fairly limited and formulaic style usually
used by configure scripts, it's not too bad, especially if you're using
autoconf to do most of the grunt work.  Using e.g. Lua for that would be
nicer, but only marginally so I think.

Of course what it _offers_ is the ability to avoid awkward bootstrapping
issues (this being the number one annoying attribute of many alternate
configuration/build systems, though most of them manage to throw in
other annoying attributes just for kicks...).

-Miles

-- 
Un-American, adj. Wicked, intolerable, heathenish.