bug-gnulib
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[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 11:33:54 -0500
User-agent: KMail/1.10.3 (Linux/2.6.28; KDE/4.1.3; x86_64; ; )

On Wednesday 07 January 2009 11:12:57 Sam Steingold wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > 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.
>
> the simple fact that you use the word "interpreter" in the above sentence
> betrays your utter ignorance on the subject.

feel better about yourself now ?  whether lisp is interpreted or compiled is 
irrelevant as the result is the same: usable environments are not common.  
certainly not as common as the other proposed languages (shell/sed/C/C++).  
i'd believe python to be more common, but obviously there's no way of backing 
that up in either direction.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]