| 1 |
On 16/12/2007, Randy Barlow <randy@×××××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> David Relson wrote: |
| 3 |
> > IMHO, python is a very nice object oriented language and C++ is no |
| 4 |
> > better (unless you need particular features of the language). I |
| 5 |
> > suspect C++ runs somewhat faster, but that's not the issue here. As I |
| 6 |
> > understand, portage needs to deal with lots of special cases and |
| 7 |
> > exceptions to the general rules for updating package. Special cases |
| 8 |
> > and exceptions always lead to complications and messy code. Switching |
| 9 |
> > languages doesn't help a situation like this. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> C++ is most certainly going to yield faster programs since it is a |
| 12 |
> machine compiled language and python is interpreted. But that's not the |
| 13 |
> idea behind portage. It's all about using the right tools for the job. |
| 14 |
> I do all my research code in C++ because I need good memory management |
| 15 |
> and I need speed. But python is far easier to code in, doesn't need to |
| 16 |
> be compiled, and is pretty dang elegant. It's also pretty platform |
| 17 |
> independent, which is also nice. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I see you haven't read the portage source-code. It isn't so elegant... |
| 20 |
And I'm saying this as someone who likes python and thinks it is |
| 21 |
generally a Good Idea. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
On 16/12/2007, Hemmann, Volker Armin |
| 24 |
<volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 25 |
> one reason pro phyton and contra c and c++ has always been: segfaults. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> And with c++ comes another one: abi changes. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Just think about this horror: gcc/libstdc++ update and your package manager |
| 30 |
> stops working.... |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Hehehehe. Guess what python is linked against (It doesn't have to be |
| 33 |
linked against libstdc++, but it usually is)? =P |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives