On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 09:29:13PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Maybe the best we can do is to set good precedence for the next 100 > programming languages to come. Looking at some examples I find: > * Haskell: Almost exclusively haskell-foo > * OCaml: A mix of ocaml-foo, ocamlfoo and some foo (even generic > names such as why or calendar). > * Perl: Mostly libfoo-perl > * Lisp: Mostly cl-foo > * Ruby: Some libfoo-ruby, some ruby-foo > * Javascript: Mostly non-generic upstream names, node-foo for node > components. > * Java: About have are non-generic upstream names, other half are > libfoo-java > Counting ruby for both, there the vote is 4 to 3 between lang-foo and > libfoo-lang.
Except that the reason you find ruby in both is that it's transitioning from libfoo-ruby to ruby-foo. So it's 4 to 2, really. -- The volume of a pizza of thickness a and radius z can be described by the following formula: pi zz a -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120216092211.gk25...@grep.be
