On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 09:18:29PM -0700, Jeremy Anderson wrote: > Out of curiosity, why are you converting from mercurial? > > I ask because my friends and I adopted fossil and other friends of ours are > asking us why we didn't go with mercurial instead. I didn't really have a > good answer, apart from "fossil seemed smaller (footprint, use-complexity) > and cooler" =)
I have a big lack of faith for interpreted languages with modules like python. First, they run unnecessarily slow (some say, that they allow developing faster, but I don't agree) and take unnecessarily big amounts of memory. Second, they usually postpone to the 'run time' many system administration issues, with far more complexity than shared objects and dynamic linking. You need matching interpreter versions, modules for those versions, spread at proper positions of the hard disk, and even then, your particular settings (PYTHONPATH,...) can disturb all that too much. You may have other software that requires another python version and the same modules spread for that version. I think the interpreted languages have quite an uncomfortable deployment. Then you go to cross-building, and cross-deployment, and to me it looks like the time to cut yoru veins. :) These interpreters postpone too much runtime environment issues to the user, instead of leaving them easy to a sysadmin or even the programmer. So, every time I run 'hg', I can only feel that it runs by chance. I have many programs written in mercurial, most started at the time where even git was not in trend, and the only vcs I knew was svn. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
