[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?

Le dimanche 29 janvier 2006 à 11:07 +0100, Eduard Bloch a écrit :
> > 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.
> Broken logics. You do accept every contribution even if you know that
> patch does not comply with your quality standards? 

I can see if the patch complies with my quality standards by looking at
the patch. Not by asking the contributor if he knows an unrelated
programming language.

> And a language
> (itself) is inefficient because _you_ don't want to learn it?

It is inefficient *for me*.

From the very beginning, you've been insulting the wrong person. After
all, I *do* know perl, I even contributed some perl code in Debian. I
know perl enough to know that:
      * I will never be able to write a perl script in a time comparable
        to that of writing a similar python script.
      * I won't be able to understand a random perl script written with
        a programming style I'm not accustomed to in a reasonable amount
        of time.
This is enough for making this language inefficient for me. It's much
more efficient to ask for help from people more knowledgeable with this
language and to spend my time with things I can enjoy hacking.

> And you can compare the efficiency without knowing how a _good_
> implementation in the other language may look like?

When the implementation already exists, the measurement for efficiency
differs. You have to compare the time needed to hack the existing
implementation to the time needed to rewrite it from scratch.

> > 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.
> Heh, now your change your line of argumentation just to make it look
> less foolish. Congratulations.

Or maybe it's just there's nothing to argue about for haskell and
scheme. Show me an administration script written in haskell or scheme,
and we can include the language in the discussion.
 .''`.           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?=

Reply to: