| 1 |
I mean, basically portage is just a set of functions, so a functional |
| 2 |
programming language might just be the best way to go |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Il giorno ven 24 apr 2020 alle ore 19:54 Michele Alzetta < |
| 5 |
michele.alzetta@×××××.com> ha scritto: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> ... seems like you're describing haskell ... |
| 8 |
> ... now, portage written in haskell would be really something |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Il giorno ven 24 apr 2020 alle ore 14:36 Caveman Al Toraboran < |
| 11 |
> toraboracaveman@××××××××××.com> ha scritto: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
>> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 8:32 PM, Michael Jones <gentoo@×××××××.com> |
| 14 |
>> wrote: |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> > > No-no. C++ is a nightmare. A few people want to use it. |
| 17 |
>> > |
| 18 |
>> > C++ is an extremely widespread language with millions of lines of code |
| 19 |
>> written daily world wide. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> i think that might be misleading as it seems to |
| 22 |
>> imply that being a c++ dev is mutually exclusive |
| 23 |
>> against being a c dev (is it? the languages agree on |
| 24 |
>> many syntaxes/features). |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> i think the right way of thinking is as follows: |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> 1. identify programming features needed to code |
| 29 |
>> a reliable pms. i think most likely all we |
| 30 |
>> need is [recursive] function calls and |
| 31 |
>> if/else/loops. the rest probably has to do |
| 32 |
>> with algorithms (independent of the language). |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> 2. pick language that has features (1) and has the |
| 35 |
>> largest users base. if the set of features in |
| 36 |
>> (1) is small enough (such as ones i suggested), |
| 37 |
>> then the c++ developers should be counted as c |
| 38 |
>> developers (because that part is common between |
| 39 |
>> c++ and c). |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
>> 3. apply occam's razor. if two languages are |
| 42 |
>> equally satisfying points (1) and (2), then |
| 43 |
>> choose the simplest one. but if my thought is |
| 44 |
>> correct (that we only need the subset of |
| 45 |
>> features in c++ that's already in c), then c is |
| 46 |
>> guaranteed to have a greater effective number |
| 47 |
>> of developers in step (2). hence, we will not |
| 48 |
>> even need to apply occam's razor to remove c++ |
| 49 |
>> (unless points (1) and (2) result in a tie, |
| 50 |
>> which i don't think it does in this case). |
| 51 |
>> |
| 52 |
>> > Lots of people want to use it. Just not people who want to write a PMS |
| 53 |
>> compliant package manager. |
| 54 |
>> |
| 55 |
>> probably same kind of people that are headed to |
| 56 |
>> blow their legs (and ours) in the process. |
| 57 |
>> |
| 58 |
>> |
| 59 |
>> |
Archives