[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: choice of implementation language
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: choice of implementation language |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Jan 2009 07:12:46 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Hello,
> Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:
> > So I conclude that the choices are
> >
> > Perl
> > Python
> > Ruby
FWIW, my preferences are: sticking with what we currently have, or Perl.
Python is installed on less than half the systems I test on, and Ruby on
virtually none other than the Linux ones. (Transferring autotools
output to them would be mean a development slowdown.)
I'm not a gnulib maintainer, but I don't see gnulib-tool maintenance as
being such a huge issue. Certainly my patches touched code virtually
unchanged for several years. I do take objection to being called on
premature optimization, after having done lots of measurements to
delimit the hot spots in a bootstrapping procedure, and with the code
not looking like it was in its early development stages. I maintain
that my not-applied patches can be redone in a fashion that is
maintainable and (just as) safe and fast (e.g., by combining all the
added eval into just one; the longer sed script is hardly one that will
need much maintenance, as its job is rather straightforward; nothing
that can't be tested efficiently with a few test suite additions).
Cheers,
Ralf
Re: choice of implementation language, Micah Cowan, 2009/01/06
Re: choice of implementation language, Sam Steingold, 2009/01/07
Re: choice of implementation language, James Youngman, 2009/01/08