On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 02:02 -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> Yes. I can't speak for others, but I can implement far more cleanly
> designed and reliable solutions using C than other choices. I can
> certainly write "less code" using Python or Perl, but I can do exactly
> the same thing with C by
I think it is very likely Henrik, that we will never agree entirely on the
subject. =) Which is okay with me and should be okay with you, too.
We agree that particular GC is doomed to be flawed. As something that
cannot be avoided, the potential for disasterous bugs that cannot be fixed
by the
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 01:39:55AM -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
>
> On 03/03/2015 09:07 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> >As time passed, they kept finding new uses for their scripting
> >language. Occasionally they would realize and existing module
> >needed major new functinoality, and it was easier to w
Le 04/03/2015 18:12, hellekin a écrit :
On 03/02/15 23:23, Gravis wrote:
consider grouping your emails as "conversations" as it is a wonderful
option for organizing mailing list threads.
*** Thanks for this, but the topic having drifted a lot: the thread
should also have been renamed. If any
On 03/02/15 23:23, Gravis wrote:
> consider grouping your emails as "conversations" as it is a wonderful
> option for organizing mailing list threads.
>
*** Thanks for this, but the topic having drifted a lot: the thread
should also have been renamed. If any of you would like to contribute a
summa
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:49:20AM +0100, shraptor shraptor wrote:
>
> I consider myself of moderate coding skills
> and I like shell. I learnt coding in basic, modula2 and some c.
If you liked Modula 2, you might want to look at Modula 3. Same
syntax, but completely different language.
-- hen
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:49:20AM +0100, shraptor shraptor wrote:
> I would like to remind you that nobody was
> born a great coder but through misstakes
> learned to be better.
>
> I think some coders that write crappy code
> are on their way to be great. others have
> a hidden agenda and theres
I would like to remind you that nobody was
born a great coder but through misstakes
learned to be better.
I think some coders that write crappy code
are on their way to be great. others have
a hidden agenda and theres a difference.
I consider myself of moderate coding skills
and I like shell. I l
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 02:02:28AM -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
[cut]
>
> Not at all. C was designed specifically to allow code to be
> portable, instead of assembly which is not.
>
> I said "usually". What I mean is that many arguments in favour of
> specific high level languages are mostly sy
Le 04/03/2015 00:36, T.J. Duchene a écrit :
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:46:17 +0100
Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 02/03/2015 23:43, T.J. Duchene a écrit :
We just see things differently. My first question would be: is
there are a justified reason NOT to use C?
There is a very good reason, and I h
On 03/03/2015 07:19 PM, Nuno Magalhães wrote:
So what you're saying is that all languages are syntactic sugar over
assembly? :)
Not at all. C was designed specifically to allow code to be portable,
instead of assembly which is not.
I said "usually". What I mean is that many arguments in f
On 03/03/2015 09:07 PM, Hendrik Boom wrote:
As time passed, they kept finding new uses for their scripting
language. Occasionally they would realize and existing module needed
major new functinoality, and it was easier to write the new version in
Scheme than to modify the old. Over two years o
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 10:07:41PM -0500, Hendrik Boom wrote:
[cut]
> > It can be discussed
> > > wether the choice makes sense, but I don't see even why C should
> > > always be considered.
> > >
> > >
> > Efficiency and guaranteed portability, Diedler. You can't say the same
> > of Pytho
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 04:42:42PM -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:25:23 +
> KatolaZ wrote:
>
>
> > Well, if you found that *for your particular tasks* C can replace Perl
> > or Python, I believe you. But it's just not true that this should be
> > the case for everybody el
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 12:51:21AM +, Isaac Dunham wrote:
[cut]
>
> However, I recognize you probably won't get C done in less than 2 hours
> like you do with Python.
That's exactly my point :) And sometimes having a Python code ready in
two hours is much more important for me than having a
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:36:54PM -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:46:17 +0100
> Didier Kryn wrote:
>
> > I had
> > experiences of big programs in C and my experience is that debugging
> > is long (and probably never ended) and evolution is a nightmare.
>
> That can be true,
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:42 PM, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:25:23 +
> KatolaZ wrote:
>
> All computer languages are constrained to the physical nature of the
> processor, so the benefits of one over another are usually really
> nothing more than syntactic sugar.
So what you'
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 07:25:23AM +, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 04:35:24PM -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> > When you code in Perl, you are using subroutines and libraries that
> > were incorporated into Perl core.The fact you are calling an
> > entire subroutine when you "split
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:46:17 +0100
Didier Kryn wrote:
>
> Le 02/03/2015 23:43, T.J. Duchene a écrit :
> > We just see things differently. My first question would be: is
> > there are a justified reason NOT to use C?
>
> There is a very good reason, and I heard it was given by
> Kernighan
On Tue, 3 Mar 2015 07:25:23 +
KatolaZ wrote:
> Well, if you found that *for your particular tasks* C can replace Perl
> or Python, I believe you. But it's just not true that this should be
> the case for everybody else, in every possible use case.
>
What I have found is that many of the ar
Le 03/03/2015 01:08, T.J. Duchene a écrit :
It's interesting that you'd mention Java here. I don't much like the
Java language or the Java programming culture, but Java bytecode has
the interesting property that, with a little plumbing, one can send
executable code over the network and ha
Le 02/03/2015 23:43, T.J. Duchene a écrit :
We just see things differently. My first question would be: is there
are a justified reason NOT to use C?
There is a very good reason, and I heard it was given by Kernighan
and Ritchie: "we assume the programmer knows what (s)he is doing". And
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 02:33:27PM -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> @Katolz
>
> It's just a conversation, an exchange of views. It's marked as OT.
> Nothing wrong with that, and it is never intended to be a "put down"
> in any way. =) I find such to be a valuable measure of the
> community.
>
>
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 04:35:24PM -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
[cut]
> >I would like to point out that this is not just a curse of
> >Debian. Also other distros and other operating systems (like FreeBSD)
> >use perl and python scripts for some non-critical system software,
> True, enough!
>
> >ju
consider grouping your emails as "conversations" as it is a wonderful
option for organizing mailing list threads.
instructions to enable on yahoo mail:
https://help.yahoo.com/kb/conversations-feature-enabled-disabled-sln15805.html
--Gravis
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Go Linux wrote:
> Are y
> On 03/02/2015 08:13 AM, KatolaZ wrote:
>
> I appreciate that, but I personally can't see how the problems of
> garbage collection in Java are related with good or bad programming
> practices,
it's an problem with garbage collection in general, not just with Java.
> or with a supposedly terribl
Are you guys ever gonna run out of gas? This thread has pretty much taken over
my Inbox . . .
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 04:12:02PM -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
>
> On 03/02/2015 09:11 AM, Tor Myklebust wrote:
> >
> >I'm even more confused by your position than I was before.
> >
> >
> I can see your point. I'll try to explain more concisely.
>
> When I call something "overuse", I am referring
On 03/02/2015 05:33 PM, Tor Myklebust wrote:
This is indeed true, but it seems like a social problem rather than a
technical problem. People can, and will, write garbage software no
matter what tools they have. It might pay to let them do this with as
little pain as possible so they can go
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, T.J. Duchene wrote:
A respectable percentage of today's Linux distribution is a kludge of rapid
pre-existing hacks that do not always work well when layered. You have
something like adduser or other command utilities written in Perl, which are
then called by init scripts,
Sorry stupid Mail program sent it before I finished. Keyboard seems to
be having a bad day.
On 03/02/2015 11:05 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
Because here's the thing. We all say we're great programmers, but
somehow, on lots of software, buffers get overrun. Pointers go errant.
Programs proceed a
On 03/02/2015 11:05 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
If I were the king of all open source, and a programmer asked to write
a program in C, I would ask them to justify that. Will their
performance bottleneck be the code itself rather than the typist's
fingers? Will the time taken by their program material
On 03/02/2015 10:49 AM, KatolaZ wrote:
On
And as they have already explained above, this is exactly the reason
why some non-critical Debian system utilities (such as debconf or
adduser) are written in Perl or Python :) And they were so cool to
manage to reduce the dependencies of these packages
On 03/02/2015 09:11 AM, Tor Myklebust wrote:
I'm even more confused by your position than I was before.
I can see your point. I'll try to explain more concisely.
When I call something "overuse", I am referring to the ideas that an
interpreted language must be used as "glue" between two bi
On 03/02/2015 08:13 AM, KatolaZ wrote:
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:01:24AM -0500, Gravis wrote:
[cut]
Hi Gravis,
I appreciate that, but I personally can't see how the problems of
garbage collection in Java are related with good or bad programming
practices, or with a supposedly terribly long c
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 12:05:34PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:16:52 -0600
> "T.J. Duchene" wrote:
>
> > Frankly, I've also believe that
> > interpreted languages should never be used for anything other than a
> > teaching tool. If you must use something like that, at least
On Mon, 02 Mar 2015 00:16:52 -0600
"T.J. Duchene" wrote:
> Frankly, I've also believe that
> interpreted languages should never be used for anything other than a
> teaching tool. If you must use something like that, at least use
> something that supports JIT to native code.
If I were the king of
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 05:35:42PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
>
> Le 02/03/2015 16:40, Hendrik Boom a écrit :
> >>>Frankly, I've also believe that
> >>>interpreted languages should never be used for anything other than a
> >>>teaching tool.
> >There's one huge advantage of interpreted languages: T
Le 02/03/2015 16:40, Hendrik Boom a écrit :
>Frankly, I've also believe that
>interpreted languages should never be used for anything other than a
>teaching tool.
There's one huge advantage of interpreted languages: The code you see in
the editor*is* the code you are running. No compiler to
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 12:16:52AM -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
>
> On 03/01/2015 05:56 PM, Tor Myklebust wrote:
> >
> >The perl-base package pre-depends on libc6 and dpkg. And nothing else.
> I was not referring to all the software that depends on them when
> using Debian/Devuan. I've never belie
On Mon, 2 Mar 2015, T.J. Duchene wrote:
On 03/01/2015 05:56 PM, Tor Myklebust wrote:
The perl-base package pre-depends on libc6 and dpkg. And nothing else.
I was not referring to all the software that depends on them when using
Debian/Devuan. I've never believed that they make good choic
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 07:01:24AM -0500, Gravis wrote:
[cut]
>
> garbage collection is actually a compounding issue, meaning that while
> it may not be a problem for programs that are only active for a few
> minutes before terminating, it is a problem for programs that are high
> intensity or r
I've been playing with golang recently and although you can't strictly stop it
garbage collecting you can compile with a flag which produces the output of the
escape analysis. Anything that doesn't escape gets stored on the stack. Things
that might are stored in the heap.
I often compile with t
> > Contrary to what most "modern" programmers would like to promote, I
> > do not believe for one second that mandatorily garbage collected,
> > bounded languages create better code design.
>
> I honestly can't see all this failing around of code written in
> Python, Perl or Ruby :)
garbage colle
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 02:59:40AM -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
[cut]
>
> Contrary to what most "modern" programmers would like to promote, I
> do not believe for one second that mandatorily garbage collected,
> bounded languages create better code design. I would subscribe to
> precisely the rev
On 03/02/2015 01:57 AM, KatolaZ wrote:
So the problem is not the language.
While I cited Perl and Python in particular, the gist of my rant was
about sloppy coding practices. I singled a few things out because I
personally feel that their communities can be regarded as some of the
worst off
On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 12:18:56AM -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
>
> On 03/02/2015 12:16 AM, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> >>
> >I was not referring to all the software that depends on them when
> >using Debian/Devuan.
>
> *I was referring to all the software that depends on them when using
> Debian/Devuan.
On 03/02/2015 12:16 AM, T.J. Duchene wrote:
I was not referring to all the software that depends on them when
using Debian/Devuan.
*I was referring to all the software that depends on them when using
Debian/Devuan. *
Bad editing on my part. Mea Culpa.
___
On 03/01/2015 05:56 PM, Tor Myklebust wrote:
The perl-base package pre-depends on libc6 and dpkg. And nothing else.
I was not referring to all the software that depends on them when using
Debian/Devuan. I've never believed that they make good choice for a
required component. Frankly, I've
On Sun, 1 Mar 2015, T.J. Duchene wrote:
On Sun, 2015-03-01 at 21:12 +0100, Philip Lacroix wrote:
As other members have already pointed out, this is not a fair
comparison.
Perhaps. The reasons I made the comparison are:
a) All of them have a dependency chain so interwoven and complex that
t
On Sun, 2015-03-01 at 21:12 +0100, Philip Lacroix wrote:
> As other members have already pointed out, this is not a fair
> comparison.
Perhaps. The reasons I made the comparison are:
a) All of them have a dependency chain so interwoven and complex that
they become non-trivial to remove. You
Am 01.03.2015 00:04 schrieb T.J. Duchene:
As for systemd having "tentacles", there is certainly truth to that,
but
then the same argument could be said of Python or Perl. Both are
rooted
so far into "standard" distributions that it is hard to extract them.
As other members have already point
On Sun, 1 Mar 2015 09:01:58 -0500
Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 06:11:42PM -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> > * On 2015 28 Feb 17:07 -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> > > As for systemd having "tentacles", there is certainly truth to
> > > that, but then the same argument could be said of
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 01:53:11AM -0500, Gravis wrote:
> > Having [perl and python] doesn't cost much, IMO.
>
> this is true however, you only need a single deep-seeded flaw to
> exploit an entire system when it comes to scripting. for further
> reading, see bash.
This is true of any library yo
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 06:11:42PM -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2015 28 Feb 17:07 -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> > As for systemd having "tentacles", there is certainly truth to that, but
> > then the same argument could be said of Python or Perl. Both are rooted
> > so far into "standard" dis
> Having [perl and python] doesn't cost much, IMO.
this is true however, you only need a single deep-seeded flaw to
exploit an entire system when it comes to scripting. for further
reading, see bash.
--Gravis
On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 1:18 AM, Joel Roth wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 12:05:32AM
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 08:18:59PM -1000, Joel Roth wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 12:05:32AM -0500, Gravis wrote:
> > > My point is that Perl and Python as system software are forced on you in
> > > a Linux distribution as a requirement in much the same way that systemd
> > > is. You can't get
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 12:05:32AM -0500, Gravis wrote:
> > My point is that Perl and Python as system software are forced on you in
> > a Linux distribution as a requirement in much the same way that systemd
> > is. You can't get rid of them
Having them don't cost much, IMO.
A lot of the Debia
> My point is that Perl and Python as system software are forced on you in
> a Linux distribution as a requirement in much the same way that systemd
> is. You can't get rid of them
this is actually something i'm looking into fixing. my preference
would be to make a standard POSIX base to build u
On Sat, 2015-02-28 at 18:11 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:
>
> With all respect, T.J., those are merely programming languages--shell, C
> and C++ are also "hard to extract"--but none are trying to dictate
> policy.
I would not consider C in that group, as the system actually requires
the C library
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:50:56 -0600
"T.J. Duchene" wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 23:38 -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> >
> > Bottom line is this: If you make a modular system with thin
> > interfaces and sane components, somebody will make a block diagram
> > representing it, accurately, in its en
* On 2015 28 Feb 17:07 -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote:
> As for systemd having "tentacles", there is certainly truth to that, but
> then the same argument could be said of Python or Perl. Both are rooted
> so far into "standard" distributions that it is hard to extract them.
With all respect, T.J., t
On Sat, 2015-02-28 at 21:03 +0100, Philip Lacroix wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call "personality clash" the case of a user having specific
> problems
> with systemd's networking tentacles on Debian Jessie, don't you think?
Actually, yes I would call it a personality problem, but only because I
have s
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 23:38 -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
>
> Bottom line is this: If you make a modular system with thin interfaces
> and sane components, somebody will make a block diagram representing it,
> accurately, in its entirety.
>
> It could be argued that the email, sockets, and djb softwa
Am 27.02.2015 21:18 schrieb T.J. Duchene:
With respect to all, I think that a measure of objectivity is called
for
here. I think that because personality clashes that Debian's entire
systemd discussion has lost any sense of reality long ago.
I wouldn't call "personality clash" the case of a us
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 01:42:49 -0500
"Steven W. Scott" wrote:
> On Feb 27, 2015 11:45 PM, "Steve Litt"
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:18:15 -0600
> > "T.J. Duchene" wrote:
> >
> >
> > > With respect to all, I think that a measure of objectivity is
> > > called for here. I think that bec
Lol! I recently happened to be researching the different soundsystem
architectures, after incinerating pulseaudio on my laptop/Wheezy and then
having different problems, and found --> https://wiki.debian.org/Sound
What struck me of particular interest were the three diagrams of how
alsa/jack/pulse
On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:18:15 -0600
"T.J. Duchene" wrote:
> With respect to all, I think that a measure of objectivity is called
> for here. I think that because personality clashes that Debian's
> entire systemd discussion has lost any sense of reality long ago.
You know, T.J., I might just ag
On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 18:13 +, KatolaZ wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 01:56:56PM +, Matthew Melton wrote:
>
> [cut]
>
> > >
> > > Just to support my point, Debian has a great logo, but this is what is
> > > currently happening to the users of Jessie, thanks to the
> > > systemd-nonsens
69 matches
Mail list logo
