[Distutils] Random bits

[Greg Stein]

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Michael Hudson wrote:
>...
> Perhaps I should have been more clear: I am in absolute agreement that it
> must be possible to be able to use distutils very simply. However it is my
> contention that it should also be extremely flexible, becuase if you want
> to do something a little bit unusual you should be able to do it without
> abandoning the advantages of distutils. I do not believe these aims are
> incompatible.

Here is where I'll state "we'll agree to disagree."

I have yet to find something that is "easy to use, yet flexible enough for
whatever you may need to do." Nobody ever does this well, and I further
believe that Python's rapid development capability obsoletes the notion of
trying to do everything in one package (since it is so easy to
write/extend with new code). In fact, your Guile quote kind of supports
what I'm trying to say: systems that have tried to encompass every need
end up big-and-ugly; therefore, I would maintain that you should *not*
attempt to be all-encompassing.

I'd rather see a bare-ass simple mechanism that solves the 80% case and
tell the other 20% to go write their own (I might actually use stronger
terms for those 20% people :-). Anybody can figure out bare-ass simple and
use it. They can also figure out how to extend it for their particularly
whacky situation.

But... IMO... and I don't expect others to share that view or to code that
view :-)

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/