1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
3 |
|
4 |
On Friday 05 December 2003 04:58, George Shapovalov wrote: |
5 |
> To reiterate them shortly, Prolog is a really esoteric language and I am |
6 |
> not sure we will be able to find enough people to feel comfortable about |
7 |
> having the very core of portage-ng implemented in it. Also there might be |
8 |
> issues of portability and efficiency.. |
9 |
|
10 |
i'm divided on this issue ... |
11 |
on one hand i hate prolog :) ... and i know there are plenty of peeps out |
12 |
there who feel the same thus leading to your point about lack of |
13 |
supporters ... |
14 |
on the other i know it's very good for somethings and perhaps this is one of |
15 |
them ... |
16 |
i dont think you should worry about portability since we have prolog |
17 |
interpreters in dev-lang that are built in C ... and we could run tests with |
18 |
different ones for efficiency ... imho if it's better than the current python |
19 |
speed, i'm all for it :) |
20 |
|
21 |
- -mike |
22 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
23 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) |
24 |
|
25 |
iQIVAwUBP9CSb0FjO5/oN/WBAQI5EQ//eWlNYb67b0YK3ivIGofkZrlrLRGAn7DV |
26 |
C+F7RTYkauk8WJE5Jd+04d1vVKuTr5S+aHNFsy58kPjW/b7e0POF/RGSd+ZMesJ5 |
27 |
S8hrlgaIXbP/yMvFhopTRg/IVGNA5vOxQtEaGiPwPDZFnoumX0+DlKsQ0kfPFDFI |
28 |
QRGwzT1M+UGQTREp0sU8N06WHs6F4hhQA8q+ZdFmWCQM84tfSZk3XsCU2vxzd4zk |
29 |
LjwnkI5rePVS6/kQCFLyDbJeupz0CP2DNVqRHs8FxWBWfVt6Yd/OiQ1xANHwDIjz |
30 |
3eD30ix/aACFl3nMbGX+pLQkH1SyJYp+FUYBG+GvXfDjDVhvLTYGbMcTq1tHTqdX |
31 |
YKgeyz6Jcz0unrB1RNQEpLWrdiubdoadq7sNAsH0vFIT7m/TSMR2J4gDIUK4eVWL |
32 |
5faG0OWx9UtMIh8XPzZwAoliQW8UEektSibxjHKAJ6UDizu9u/o7w3As1Yj8G2eq |
33 |
pJ5TyR1IJpQ9iS7r/dm1vn5jb+YHFVuVHCty8SSZReq2ESnXQyslRklKPhztn2ev |
34 |
AL0Dxex6y6FPAkukyqyTZR0IMke8qm6vupcNVeXP71TIbM9McDSoom40QA5sNt/W |
35 |
adYV6MABILIQzIb3qeaBc2unZ8INPDdY51NylSas5kqEAzRNfNctaAliFO/SIxzb |
36 |
ySGRZpeDlos= |
37 |
=f3nG |
38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |