On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Tom Javen wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Martin Husemann wrote:

> > 
> > I aggree. Some of the people advocating CVSup should come forward with a
> > design document, a protocol description and we could see if we find a
> > volunteer to do an acceptable implemention - that might even be
> > interoperable ;-)

> Would it be a waste of time just to rewrite it because of modula-3 ?
A
  Let `n' equal the number of NetBSD platforms interested in running
  CVSup.

  if ( `n' * `The effort to port Modula-3 to a new architecture' 
       > `The effort to port CVSup to C one time' ) {
      Do the port to C.
  }
  else {
      Port Modula-3 to `n' platforms.
  }

A nice benefit of porting CVSup to C is that people don't have to get very
deep into worrying about platform specific details (as they would with
porting a Modula-3 compiler).  It also means that if `n' increases,
there's no additional cost to having CVSup run on that platform.  It
scales better.  

Hey I wouldn't mind having a Modula-3 compiler for my VAX, but I'm not
going to be the one to port it.  Maybe we need a Modula-3 interpreter?  
Or maybe we should instead port CVSup to perl so *everybody* can run it,
including WinNT bozos.

-brian.
---
Brian "JARAI" Chase | http://world.std.com/~bdc/ | VAXZilla LIVES!!!