[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: choice of implementation language
From: |
Mike Frysinger |
Subject: |
Re: choice of implementation language |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:33:54 -0500 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.10.3 (Linux/2.6.28; KDE/4.1.3; x86_64; ; ) |
On Wednesday 07 January 2009 11:12:57 Sam Steingold wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 January 2009 09:39:06 Sam Steingold wrote:
> >> Bruno Haible wrote:
> >>> If gnulib-tool was to be rewritten in another programming language than
> >>> shell + sed, what would be the good choices?
> >>
> >> a popularity contest is not the way to choose a language.
> >>
> >> and why aren't you even considering lisp?
> >> clisp comes with all linux distributions.
> >> every decent CS program provides at least some lisp exposure, so it is
> >> not completely unfamiliar to most people.
> >> things like perl/python/ruby, defined by their unique implementations,
> >> enforce the "throwaway code" approach.
> >
> > lisp interpreters are far from common, and no one does real work in lisp.
>
> the simple fact that you use the word "interpreter" in the above sentence
> betrays your utter ignorance on the subject.
feel better about yourself now ? whether lisp is interpreted or compiled is
irrelevant as the result is the same: usable environments are not common.
certainly not as common as the other proposed languages (shell/sed/C/C++).
i'd believe python to be more common, but obviously there's no way of backing
that up in either direction.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- Re: choice of implementation language, (continued)
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