Announcing Dryverl: an Erlang-to-C binding compiler
Mon May 29 11:58:30 CEST 2006
On 5/29/06, Bengt Kleberg <> wrote:
> On 2006-05-29 10:59, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> > I don't know if that's what Richard was aiming at, but my belief is
> > that a tool should make life easier foremost for the end users.
> > Otherwise they won't use it...
> > regards,
> > Vlad
> i agree, but then we have this: Worse is Better
Yes, but these choices are heavily dependent on the relative "badness"
and "goodness" - not everything that is worse is better :-)
The article says that WiB so that things can gain a wide base fast,
which in this case might not be very relevant, as there's no
Also, I think I would like to use this argument in a different way:
let Dryverl be "worse" in the meaning of not providing a complete
semantic analysis at parse time, but instead having a smooth learning
curve. Add this analysis later.
My personal bias is that I would rather code a driver from scratch
(because then I at least understand what's happening) than using an
overly complicated tool. I can't say where the break-even point is,
and I don't want to imply that Dryverl's use of xml is overly
complicated - but from the few examples I seen it does seem possible
for it to be so.
More information about the erlang-questions