Re: Time to rewrite dpkg
Marek Habersack <grendel@vip.net.pl> writes:
> [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>]
> * Marcus Brinkmann said:
> > On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:03:46AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> >
> > > 3. Most programmers would write code in C
> >
> > Yeah, uh. But that's the point isn't it?
> No, that's the reality.
>
> > The current dpkg is written in C. How many programmers are working on it?
> Again, that's not an argument. People come and people go, and more of them
> know C than C++. Besides, ech..., how can you draw an argument like this???
> Is that a reason to write dpkg in Heskell, because the current maintainer
> fancies that? And what if he gets tired maintainig it? And what about
> compatibility? Extensibility? Interoperability? They don't matter at all,
> right?
Its the reason that validates it all. If the maintainer wants to write
dpkg in heskell, he may do so. You don't have to use it. :)
> > The only contributions to our packaging systems today are done with C++
> > (apt), and perl (install methods).
> Yes, yes. But you won't be able to use perl with C++ libraries.
So what, if everyting is provided with the c++ libs we don't need perl.
Time will tell if a dpkg in C++ is better than the one we have now. If
someone writes one in C and it prooves more reliable, everyone can
switch again.
May the Source be with you.
Goswin
PS: It doesn't matter in what language its written, as long as it is
written.
Reply to: