On 1/31/19 10:24 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Replacing Python with Go should happen first for these reasons: > > (a) It's much easier than replacing the C. Thus, it will give those of us > with weak or noexistent Go skills time and room to ramp up. (Ian and I are > already fluent.) > > (b) Python library management is a mess that we want to get shut of.
I see why it would be beneficial to use the utilities as an opportunity for people to learn Go. Is someone other than you or Ian going to do that porting work? If not, it won't be useful for that purpose, though. Even if it is useful for learning, it's not without trade-offs. The core assumption here is that more people know Python than Go. That's why people need an opportunity to learn Go. Python is an incredibly popular language that is very easy to edit for debugging--including in situ on an installed system. For example, you can just throw in print statements. You'd be replacing that with something far less well known, which produces binaries (which are much harder to debug). Also, if a sysadmin wants to build something custom, copying one of the existing Python utilities and incrementally editing it is vastly easier. Go seems like much more of a "programmer's language" than a "sysadmin's language". I don't see the same problems with Python libraries that you do. I have used tons of Python libraries in multiple different projects/situations and things work fine for me. -- Richard
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
