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