Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (quoted-printable)>] > * Marcus Brinkmann said: > > On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:03:46AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote: > > > > > 3. Most programmers would write code in C > > > > Yeah, uh. But that's the point isn't it? > No, that's the reality. > > > The current dpkg is written in C. How many programmers are working on it? > Again, that's not an argument. People come and people go, and more of them > know C than C++. Besides, ech..., how can you draw an argument like this??? > Is that a reason to write dpkg in Heskell, because the current maintainer > fancies that? And what if he gets tired maintainig it? And what about > compatibility? Extensibility? Interoperability? They don't matter at all, > right?
Its the reason that validates it all. If the maintainer wants to write dpkg in heskell, he may do so. You don't have to use it. :) > > The only contributions to our packaging systems today are done with C++ > > (apt), and perl (install methods). > Yes, yes. But you won't be able to use perl with C++ libraries. So what, if everyting is provided with the c++ libs we don't need perl. Time will tell if a dpkg in C++ is better than the one we have now. If someone writes one in C and it prooves more reliable, everyone can switch again. May the Source be with you. Goswin PS: It doesn't matter in what language its written, as long as it is written.