> Your assumption that I know that most Hollywood program authors do not
> distribute the required plug-ins with their programs is completely false

Papiosaur told you in comment #3 that the "Hollywood plugins are [...] used by many software in the pack". Even if the Chrysalis pack contained just one single Hollywood program requiring plugins the program does not come with, Papiosaur would have to include these plugins.

> you should have been able to figure that out with my explanation of how
> I believe Hollywood programs should be distributed as stand alone products.

As OlafSch put it fittingly, you are confusing your fantasy wishes with reality. How you believe Hollywood programs should be distributed is not how most Hollywood programs are distributed in reality. Reality is what Papiosaur has to come to terms with when composing Chrysalis, which means that as soon as one or more Hollywood programs contained in Chrysalis require a plugin, this plugin must be contained in Chrysalis as well.

> I could not explain it any clearer than jpv, so perhaps you should
> just refer to his post on this subject for any further clarification.

Everything jPV wrote in this thread makes complete sense to me, opposed to the specific things I quoted from you and replied to. jPV certainly didn't recommend to not distribute any Hollywood plugins with Chrysalis. This was just you, nobody else.

> Papiosaur will have to include any plug-ins for software poorly distributed
> without the needed plug-ins

Exactly, and this contradicts what you (originally, before the edits) wrote in comment #2, which I replied to.

> it is currently a waste of RAM to include all of the Hollywood plug-ins
> in LIBS, as they will ALL be loaded, when any Hollywood program is
> started, if they are needed or not.

I was objecting to your recommendation to not make Chrysalis install ANY Hollywood plugins in Libs. A recommendation to not have it install ALL plugins I wouldn't have objected to.

> All Hollywood plug-ins are only needed by purchasers of the Hollywood
> programming language who intend to use them in their programs

I'd think that even Hollywood programmers do not necessarily need all existing plugins installed but only those they actually use in their programs. That's not really different from mere users of Hollywood programs, I'd say.

>>> Hollywood makes it very easy to compile software as a stand alone
>>> executable, which [...] would also include any plug-in needed to run
>>> such software. If that is not the case, I stand corrected

>> Regarding the specific point you are trying to make, I'm not sure about
>> the practical difference between having the plugins included in the
>> executable file or having them included as files in the installation archive.

> See jpv's post for the practical implications

That's not what I mean. What I mean is why you only "stand corrected" if a Hollywood executable couldn't "include any plug-in needed" when in fact it's also possible to not include them in the executable but instead put them as files in the program directory.

> I made my suggestion, which I think was a valid one

You still think that your original suggestion to not "add any plug-in's for Hollywood" is valid? Why the edits then?

> Papiosaur is smart enough to figure out what to do, and which plug-ins to install

Yes, I consider him smart enough to not follow your original suggestion.

> jpv explained it much better than I did

Indeed, I could follow everything he suggested and explained.

> he completely understands my reasoning for suggesting that
> Papiosaur not include all Hollywood plug-ins.

That's clearly not what you suggested and you know it. It's still in comment #2, between the edits, and in my unedited quotes.

> I won't [...] debate [...] why some Hollywood programmers do NOT include the
> needed plug-ins for their software. Start another thread for that if you like.

I'm not overly interested in what Hollywood programmers do or not do regarding the plugins. What I've been interested in and replied to is your original suggestion to not include ANY Hollywood plugins in Chrysalis and your rationale for this suggestion.

> @OlafSch [...] I just made a simple suggestion, which another member
> here either did not understand, or like you, just disagrees with.

Please note that I've been disagreeing with your original suggestion all along.