Re: [THIN] - Need to reduce Ruby Sources to the Minimal

On Thu, 12 May 2005, Ilias Lazaridis wrote:

> [e-mail] wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> What do you expect by "thin"?
>
> I will try.
>
> * the core ruby interpreter, with the minimal necessary libraries.

Do you mean core libraries, not standard libraries -- exclude things
you must "require" to obtain?   That way you'd only get the builtin
classes like Array, Hash, Regexp....  This seems a useful goal, that
I have asked for in the past:

http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?BatteriesExcludedDistribution

Your use of 'necessary' doesn't specify 'for what'. 
>
>>>> When building Ruby, one of the first things created is a "miniruby" 
>>>> executable, which is used for the rest of the building process. Look into 
>>>> the Makefile of the Ruby source distribution.
>>> 
>>> very complicated those makefiles.
>>> 
>>> How can I make a makefile more 'human-readable', possibly with a special 
>>> editor? (on windows).
>> 
>> Can you explain more concretely?
>
> i've reviewed the bcc32\Makefile.sub
>
> I looks not like an human-written file.
>
> Which tool can I use to view/modify this file conveniently?

It is Makefile.sub, not a Makefile as such.  The complexity is due
to portability issues.  I've never touched this file, but I can see
that what makes this more complex than a Makefile is the use of 
#ifdef and #else constructs.  Those should be reasonably familiar to 
a C programmer.

Most editors with syntax highlighting, such as Vim, Emacs,
Scintilla(?)  should be able to improve the readability by colouring
words according to the grammar.  I know of no better systems at
present for displaying this kind of information, but would be glad
of something more helpful if it exists.
>
> -
>
> Alternatively
>
> I would like to have a simple makefile, like:
>
> CC main.c
> CC class.c
> CC ...
>
> LINK ruby.exe main.obj, class.obj, ...

That isn't actually a makefile.  There is no means of avoiding
compilation if something is already built.  This example you give is
just a script.  You have even predetermined the compiler, for that
matter, rather than pulling it from $(CC).
>
> -
>
> There is no structure in the source-code, where I could detect the 
> subsystems.

Which source code files do you refer to with this remark?
>

         Hugh