1 |
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:05:17 -0600 |
2 |
Dale wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> David Relson wrote: |
5 |
> > On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 06:20:38 -0600 |
6 |
> > Dale wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > ...[snip]... |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> >> I read a link provided earlier about Plaudis, (sp?). It seems that |
11 |
> >> Portage has a lot of hacks in it, according to what I read |
12 |
> >> anyway. Is that true? Also, is it being wrote with python |
13 |
> >> hurting portage as for as the program itself? If it is, why are |
14 |
> >> they not trying to switch to something else? If C++ is better, |
15 |
> >> then putting off changing is only going to get harder as time goes |
16 |
> >> on. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > IMHO, python is a very nice object oriented language and C++ is no |
19 |
> > better (unless you need particular features of the language). I |
20 |
> > suspect C++ runs somewhat faster, but that's not the issue here. |
21 |
> > As I understand, portage needs to deal with lots of special cases |
22 |
> > and exceptions to the general rules for updating package. Special |
23 |
> > cases and exceptions always lead to complications and messy code. |
24 |
> > Switching languages doesn't help a situation like this. |
25 |
> > |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Thanks. I was curious as to how a language could hurt a program as |
28 |
> long as the end result is the same. I take what you wrote as, it is |
29 |
> not the rules that makes a mess but all the exceptions to the rules |
30 |
> that makes a mess. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> Thanks for the reply. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> Dale |
35 |
|
36 |
I don't know enough to say for sure. I _am_ a programmer, but not |
37 |
involved with portage. My guess is that the rules are reasonable, but |
38 |
evolved over time. Having read many messages about portage and ebuilds |
39 |
I'm lead to believe that exceptions have lead to complications and a |
40 |
less than ideal solution -- code that's difficult to maintain.. |
41 |
-- |
42 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |