On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:05:17 -0600 Dale wrote: > David Relson wrote: > > On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 06:20:38 -0600 > > Dale wrote: > > > > ...[snip]... > > > >> I read a link provided earlier about Plaudis, (sp?). It seems that > >> Portage has a lot of hacks in it, according to what I read > >> anyway. Is that true? Also, is it being wrote with python > >> hurting portage as for as the program itself? If it is, why are > >> they not trying to switch to something else? If C++ is better, > >> then putting off changing is only going to get harder as time goes > >> on. > > > > IMHO, python is a very nice object oriented language and C++ is no > > better (unless you need particular features of the language). I > > suspect C++ runs somewhat faster, but that's not the issue here. > > As I understand, portage needs to deal with lots of special cases > > and exceptions to the general rules for updating package. Special > > cases and exceptions always lead to complications and messy code. > > Switching languages doesn't help a situation like this. > > > > Thanks. I was curious as to how a language could hurt a program as > long as the end result is the same. I take what you wrote as, it is > not the rules that makes a mess but all the exceptions to the rules > that makes a mess. > > Thanks for the reply. > > Dale
I don't know enough to say for sure. I _am_ a programmer, but not involved with portage. My guess is that the rules are reasonable, but evolved over time. Having read many messages about portage and ebuilds I'm lead to believe that exceptions have lead to complications and a less than ideal solution -- code that's difficult to maintain.. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
