Le samedi 28 janvier 2006 à 21:13 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit : > > Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here > > that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks > > too complex and cryptic to us. > > I see. I am not sure how I can respond to this without seeming > to be insulting. We are trying to build the best OS out there, and > ifone of the most popular glue languages is too abstruse for people, > perhaps they should, umm, reconsider their qualifications? You don't only *seem* to be insulting. Just because people don't want to waste their time with an inefficient language, you label them as incompetent? Guess what, some people have better to do than learning perl or C++. If you're going to refuse contributions from people who don't understand perl, I'm not sure you're going to build the best OS out there - only the best perl OS. > Heck no. We definitely need ruby, for the whole OO thang that > python messed up ;). And while we are talking OO, how about a teensy > smalltalk interpreter? > > Or how about some haskell, so we can _prove_ maintainer > scripts are correct? I mean, surely we can make a strong case for > haskell, which is a different kinda beast than procedural languages. > > Or Scheme. Oooh, scheme. Thank you, I too can provide a list of languages. What are you trying to prove? If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the base system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first one to support that inclusion. Guess what? Such scripts don't exist, because these languages are currently not suitable for these tasks. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\ : :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org `. `' joss@debian.org `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=