Re: Beware of modules.

Olivier Galibert <galibert(a)pobox.com&gt; writes: Yes, here's one. As part of my research, I am working on a multi-lingual program analysis engine. I need a front-end. Actually, I need many front-ends: an editor, a couple of graphical tools, may be a batch tool. So, what do I do? Invent an extension engine? 10 years ago I would have done just that, but now I a have more appealing alternative: I instrument the analysis engine as a dynamic library with language bindings du jour. You want to hack in perl? I give you perl bindings. Tcl? No problem. Java? We have that. An editor? XEmacs! This is why *I* want modules in XEmacs. I don't really care about TTY code not being loaded when I am using X; or vice versa. (Although I admit that splitting things like HTML parser would be a good engineering decision). I need extensibility; I need even more extensibility than XEmacs lisp gives me, and modules do just that. Marat.