> I have the same confusion, but the initial publication of Chef was > made with many claims that it was just easier for them to start again > than to try to understand Puppet's code base or to try to participate > as developers. Of course, this is a development truism: It's *always* > easier to start from scratch, it's just not not always better.
AFAICT, and without having spent a lot of time investigating, Chef has a vastly different set of requirements. Chef implements: 1. a system that is essentially a Ruby library, rather than a stand alone language; and 2. has a fixed evaluation order, a la cfengine, rather than relying on declared dependencies and a topological sort of the dependency graph. (ie, the system evaluates recipes in order of declaration, rather than dependency order) Either would seem to make the system rather different to Puppet, sufficiently so that they may indeed be correct that it is easier to start again. Michael. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
