| 1 |
On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 16:17, Thomas L. Bevan wrote: |
| 2 |
> I did a little bit of background reading on the new portage development. |
| 3 |
> I was wondering whether the debate over the new implementation language has |
| 4 |
> been settled. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
There really isn't a debate; an initial exploratory prototype is being |
| 7 |
written in prolog, after which a set of requirements and design goals |
| 8 |
will be written up, and will be used to select the language(s) that will |
| 9 |
be used for the implementation. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Our exploratory prototype is being used to see what is possible, and |
| 12 |
will help us to develop our vision for the next portage. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> If not, I'd like to suggest 'Haskell' a lazy functional language with a good |
| 15 |
> FFI. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
OK, it will be one of the languages we will look at. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Regards, |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Daniel |
Archives