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