I mean, basically portage is just a set of functions, so a functional programming language might just be the best way to go
Il giorno ven 24 apr 2020 alle ore 19:54 Michele Alzetta < michele.alze...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > ... seems like you're describing haskell ... > ... now, portage written in haskell would be really something > > Il giorno ven 24 apr 2020 alle ore 14:36 Caveman Al Toraboran < > toraboracave...@protonmail.com> ha scritto: > >> On Wednesday, April 22, 2020 8:32 PM, Michael Jones <gen...@jonesmz.com> >> wrote: >> >> > > No-no. C++ is a nightmare. A few people want to use it. >> > >> > C++ is an extremely widespread language with millions of lines of code >> written daily world wide. >> >> i think that might be misleading as it seems to >> imply that being a c++ dev is mutually exclusive >> against being a c dev (is it? the languages agree on >> many syntaxes/features). >> >> i think the right way of thinking is as follows: >> >> 1. identify programming features needed to code >> a reliable pms. i think most likely all we >> need is [recursive] function calls and >> if/else/loops. the rest probably has to do >> with algorithms (independent of the language). >> >> 2. pick language that has features (1) and has the >> largest users base. if the set of features in >> (1) is small enough (such as ones i suggested), >> then the c++ developers should be counted as c >> developers (because that part is common between >> c++ and c). >> >> 3. apply occam's razor. if two languages are >> equally satisfying points (1) and (2), then >> choose the simplest one. but if my thought is >> correct (that we only need the subset of >> features in c++ that's already in c), then c is >> guaranteed to have a greater effective number >> of developers in step (2). hence, we will not >> even need to apply occam's razor to remove c++ >> (unless points (1) and (2) result in a tie, >> which i don't think it does in this case). >> >> > Lots of people want to use it. Just not people who want to write a PMS >> compliant package manager. >> >> probably same kind of people that are headed to >> blow their legs (and ours) in the process. >> >> >>
