Garrett Cooper wrote:
Duane Whitty wrote:
On Tuesday, 15 May 2007 at 1:05:07 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Tom Evans wrote:
On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 22:17 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
Ruby's nice, but it's built on Perl so I have suspicions on its
overall usability / speed given my experience with Perl over the
past 4 months daily for work :(.. Ruby's just the new big thing for
programming languages, so everyone's into it. Kind of like how Java
was compared to C/C++ a few years back. But once everything dies
down people will realize that they'll still have to program in
C/C++/Perl for real-world applications.
Python seems better than Ruby from what I can see, but I really
don't like the mandatory indentation thing. Ew..
Rubies are better Perls. That's the only connection between the two.
One
day, a Japanese programmer got fed up with Perl, and wrote a better
language (for varying meanings of better).
Its not based or built on Perl in any respect.
Python and Ruby both have the same targets; to speed development time
and increase programmer productivity.
But one must make a Perl before one can make a Ruby. Maybe that was
what I was trying to aim for.
Ruby's nice, but it seems like it's going to be a bit passe in a few
years like Java was for compilable / interpretable languages.
-Garrett
>
None of this matters
My only point is that if you need something quick to explore the
format of
pkgdb.db or INDEX.db you are pretty well assured of finding a tool you
can work with; Perl, Python, or Ruby. If these aren't sufficient use C.
The pkg_* tools are written in C so in C they will be modified; but no
harm in doing initial exploration and prototyping with something else.
Let's stay focused!
Duane
Ok, finally dumped the full database. Will analyze closely later on
tonight.
Cheers,
-Garrett
PS If you installed ruby-bdb, simply running "make config" in the
ports-mgmt/portupgrade directory and selecting ruby-bdb1 won't do. You
have to go into databases/ruby-bdb, do make deinstall, then go to
databases/ruby-bdb1 and do make install, or something similar.
If you haven't seen my entry yet, and you're interested, I've posted my
analysis of the INDEX-*.db file at:
<http://blogs.freebsdish.org/gcooper/2007/05/19/behind-index-db>.
I'd like to really discuss the additional metadata that gets tacked
onto each database file, in particular, is it necessary, and is there a
better way to do that?
Also, the whole Ruby ports tools writing to the ports db consistently
instead of at exit is another item which probably should be discussed
too (someone brought this up earlier).
Thanks,
-Garrett
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
