[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: choice of implementation language
From: |
Mike Frysinger |
Subject: |
Re: choice of implementation language |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:41:20 -0500 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.10.3 (Linux/2.6.28; KDE/4.1.3; x86_64; ; ) |
On Wednesday 07 January 2009 09:39:06 Sam Steingold wrote:
> Bruno Haible wrote:
> > If gnulib-tool was to be rewritten in another programming language than
> > shell + sed, what would be the good choices?
>
> a popularity contest is not the way to choose a language.
>
> and why aren't you even considering lisp?
> clisp comes with all linux distributions.
> every decent CS program provides at least some lisp exposure, so it is not
> completely unfamiliar to most people.
> things like perl/python/ruby, defined by their unique implementations,
> enforce the "throwaway code" approach.
lisp interpreters are far from common, and no one does real work in lisp. CS
students get enough lisp exposure to make them realize they dont ever want to
touch it again.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- Re: choice of implementation language, (continued)
Re: choice of implementation language, Micah Cowan, 2009/01/06
Re: choice of implementation language, Sam Steingold, 2009/01/07
- Re: choice of implementation language,
Mike Frysinger <=
Re: choice of implementation language, James Youngman, 2009/01/08