| 1 |
On 12/06/03 Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Saturday 06 December 2003 02:09, Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Seeing this "language war" on -dev I think I should say again that |
| 5 |
> > the component model should make us free from language restrictions. |
| 6 |
> > There is no sense in saying "we should use language XXX for |
| 7 |
> > portage-ng" as the goal should be that each component can be |
| 8 |
> > implemented in the best fitting language. So it should be possible |
| 9 |
> > to have the dependency resolver in prolog, the ebuild parser in |
| 10 |
> > perl, the frontend in python, the storage backend in C and so on. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I believe this is already part of the requirements. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yes, I just wanted to say it again as I saw the thread on -dev. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I think the point is that even designing the global architecture |
| 17 |
> should come before deciding on a language for the component |
| 18 |
> interaction interface. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
While I agree in general I think it's much easier to discuss the |
| 21 |
architecture when we can use a uniform syntax. This doesn't have to be a |
| 22 |
real language, Pseudo Code would work too but we would have to define |
| 23 |
the syntax first, so we can choose the interface language right then |
| 24 |
(and the number of choices isn't that large). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Marius |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 32 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives