Re: extraordinary stoc/ thrash ...

> > Backwards compatibility to whom ? Binaries ? Source ? User data ?
>
> Extensions.

Okay. Do we *need* ABI compatibility across major releases here?

> You know the things you don't like and don't believe should exist :-)

No, you didnt get me wrong ;-p
My point just was that extensions (at least as soon as they require
ABI compatibility) should be handled through distro infrastructures,
so distros make sure they're built against the correct application
release.

> > Perhaps it could make sense to design a new interface and step by
> > step get rid of the old one ?
>
> It is worth considering the expense of answering questions before
> asking too many of them. Do you intend to make a difference to the
> code around this area ? if so, that would be excellent, and I'm happy
> to help out.

Well, let's see. I'm currently thinking about pushing that through
an code generator, so most of the stuff can directly reside in
.text or .cdata. I'm currently looking around for a static hashtable
generator (maybe even one that can utilize machine-speficic
optimizations). That could bring us a major performance breakthrough.

> What needs doing is (usually) somewhat obvious, as is your
> suggestion :-) The only missing piece is the manpower to do it.

Yes, of course. That's why I prefer to carefully think about things,y
before actually coding anything (I, personally, have to drive around
the country very much, so much time for thinking, but obviously
coding and driving are mutually exclusive ;-o)


cu