lynx-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LYNX-DEV extension languages for Lynx


From: David Combs
Subject: Re: LYNX-DEV extension languages for Lynx
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:24:07 -0800 (PST)



> From address@hidden Tue Jan  6 05:20:05 1998
> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 1998 07:42:53 -0500
> From: address@hidden (Larry W. Virden, x2487)
> Subject: Re: LYNX-DEV extension languages for Lynx
> In-Reply-To: <address@hidden> of Mon, 5 Jan 1998 18:35:06 -0800 (PST)
> To: address@hidden
> Sender: address@hidden
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: address@hidden
> 
> From: Doug Kaufman <address@hidden>
> 
> >On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Andrew Kuchling wrote:
> >
> >>    * The constraint of DOS compatibility is a problem; as Lynx
> >> gets bigger and bigger, it gets harder to make things work on DOS.
> >> Should DOS users be abandoned, and told "Well, you've got the DOS port
> >> of Lynx 2.7, and that's it for you."?  Then development could focus on
> >> 32-bit platforms: Win95, MacOS, Unix, and VMS if anyone has access to
> >> it.
> >
> >I am not sure what you mean by "it gets harder to make things work on
> >DOS".  The main port work was done by Wayne some time ago.  Since then,
> 
> If I understand Andrew's point, it is that if lynx is rewritten from scratch,
> then we have to start all over again getting lynx to with DOS.  And, if we
> embed Guile, Tcl, etc. into lynx during that rewrite, we have to port
> that embedded interpreter, along with getting lynx to work on DOS.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Larry W. Virden                 INET: address@hidden
> <URL:http://www.teraform.com/%7Elvirden/> <*> O- "We are all Kosh."
> Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should 
> be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
> 


If we rewrite Lynx from scratch, lets at least
do it in JAVA (assuming that java will eventually
work on dos -- without "windows"-display stuff.

Or even without dos, if need be.

By Java, I mean everything in java EXCEPT the
fancy screen-display via pop-up windows, etc.

REASON: because then the code can be reorganized
into classes, and we can, at run time, load in
whatever VERSION of a class we want, eg
 the TD version, the FOTE version, etc.

Break the thing up into small pieces, so we can
do this.

Would make it a LOT easier for people to work on
various extensions, features, etc.

Plus there will be LOTS of free java code around
to use for various things we (well, you) have 
tediously coded by hand.

---

I read on this mailing list that the code has really
gotten hard to read, maybe a bit spagetti-like.
For the last two years the idea of a rewrite has
appeared every few months.

I strongly believe that Java is going to totally
supersede C and C++ for "big" jobs.

By the time this conversion is finished (2 years
from now?) Java will have all its JIT compilers,
should run just about as fast as C++, etc.

By the way, to see the FUTURE java, look at 
"pizza", a SUPERSET of java, with all kind of
nifty cs-type features, at

<LI><a href="http://wwwipd.ira.uka.de/~pizza/";>Welcome to the Pizza site! 
(superset of java)</a>

COMMENTS, please?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]