1 |
On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 02:58, George Shapovalov wrote: |
2 |
> On Wednesday 03 December 2003 15:08, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
3 |
> > I haven't looked at twisted, but a good solution suggested by nerdboy is |
4 |
> > to have a design competition once we have the requirements finalized. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> So, we are going to do it according to "accepted practices" :). |
7 |
> Seriously, I am glad to see it! And here is my entry ;). |
8 |
|
9 |
Everyone, please note above that I said "have a design competition *once |
10 |
we have the requirements finalized*." This hasn't happened yet. Please |
11 |
focus on the capabilities you want in Portage first. Tell us about |
12 |
these. These need to be documented first. Any design competition will |
13 |
not begin until it is officially announced and until we have a set of |
14 |
requirements for any submitted design to be judged by. |
15 |
|
16 |
We need to clearly determine what we are shooting for before we choose a |
17 |
language to get us there. |
18 |
|
19 |
That being said, ADA is something I'd be comfortable with if the |
20 |
proposed implementation can meet our requirements, and will be seriously |
21 |
considered, and we will post george's proposal for ADA to the portage-ng |
22 |
pages in the proper time (again, when he has the opportunity to see a |
23 |
complete set of requirements for submissions, and explain how his |
24 |
implementation would meet those requirements.) |
25 |
|
26 |
But please, we have not decided on prolog, there is no need to |
27 |
pre-emptively bash it (no pun intended.) Focus on submitting requests |
28 |
for what you want portage-ng to be able to *do*, not what language you |
29 |
think it should be coded in. |
30 |
|
31 |
Look at it this way (this is something nerdboy explained to me) -- if we |
32 |
have a solid set of requirements, we could have those requirements |
33 |
implemented in *any* language, and as long as our requirements are met |
34 |
fully, we would be happy with the outcome. That is what we want our |
35 |
requirements to do for us, and why they are so important. I don't want |
36 |
to add any "rigged" requirements that are designed to steer us towards |
37 |
prolog, C, C++, python, ADA or anything else. Let's just document |
38 |
clearly what we need and what we expect portage-ng to be able to do, and |
39 |
the rest will be sorted out later. |
40 |
|
41 |
If portability is important, put that in the requirements. Performance? |
42 |
Put it in the requirements. etc etc. Choice of a particular language |
43 |
over another will not guarantee that the resultant software will meet |
44 |
our needs. Having something documented in the requirements will. |
45 |
|
46 |
Regards, |
47 |
|
48 |
Daniel |