[analog-help] The next 'best' analyzer...?

[Dimitri Maziuk]

On Friday 31 August 2007 12:18:30 Per Jessen wrote:
> Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> > Per Jessen wrote:
> > ...
> >
> >> Maybe introducing autoconf into the build?
> >
> > Please don't: applications that use libtool tend to only build on
> > "GNU's Not Unix". Besides, if the code is written in $language -- as
> > opposed to GNU$language, most of autoconf's checks are unnecessary
> > cruft. Perhaps if someone rewrites analog in gunk (aka gnuc) it'll
> > need an automagical check if c compiler can create excutables and
> > isn't missing stdio.h. But as it stands now, it ain't broken to begin
> > with.
>
> Alright, then perhaps not autoconf itself, but the general "edit the
> header file" configuration method is a little dated, so some kind of
> assisted config tool would come in handy.

My take on it, if one can't edit the defines in Makefile/header file, then one 
probably won't be able to create a usable analog config file either. Or 
apache config file -- so that person probably shouldn't try to run a 
webserver anyway.

As for latest and greatest [X]HTML, W3C's been criticized, laughed at, etc. 
over the whole deal enough so that they finally started talking about an 
upcoming new HTML (not "X") draft. That's supposed to primarily include 
support for dynamic pages, which is not really relevant for analog output. 
(Neither is most of HTML since 3.2, except stylesheets.)

Dima
-- 
Dimitri Maziuk
Programmer/sysadmin
BioMagResBank, UW-Madison -- http://www.bmrb.wisc.edu