Re: Configuration management, revision 3
On Thu, Jul 30, 1998 at 10:05:53AM +0100, Martin Oldfield wrote:
> Rather than writing yet another language why don't we just use an
> existing one ? Whilst it's true that you don't want to force a user to
> learn say perl just so that he can write his software, it's surely
> better that he learns the little bit of perl than some other language
> which he can't use elsewhere ?
In principle I agree. The problem is that I know no existing
languages we could use.
The chief job of the language would consist of describing what the
config module needs to know, by describing inherently complex data
structures (trees, lists and the like with possibly complex
interdependency semantics) and their contents. So this kind of work
must be natural to the language. Perl and shells simply are not
suitable. Lisp-like languages cope better, hence my choice of syntax
in the illustration.
> After all, most configuration scripts will be fairly standard so
> presumably most people who don't know the language will just copy
> something similar that's already been written.
This effect is independent of the language we decide to use.
Antti-Juhani
--
Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho <gaia@iki.fi> ** <URL:http://www.iki.fi/gaia/> **
I can't seem to find a lowercase 'r' on my keyboard.
(Lee Davies in comp.unix.programmer on July 22, 1998)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: