On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Felix Frank <
[email protected]> wrote:

>  On 09/26/2014 11:12 PM, Rob Reynolds wrote:
>
>   Felix, if your "what?" is about Java (the language), that was a
>> mistake. JVM on the server side, generally written in Clojure, is the
>> direction things are heading. C++ on the client side. Ruby is still
>> sticking around in order to support extensions. That said, some things
>> we'll need to discuss and figure out what the best way to move forward is.
>> Luke wrote up a good post about some of these changes at
>> http://puppetlabs.com/blog/evolving-puppet-for-next-ten-years
>>
>>  I'm good with JVM, but C++ feels like a backward step in many regards.
> My judgment here may be clouded by reading too many blogpost of them
> naysayers.
>

C++ should be a forward step from a performance/footprint perspective. I'm
guessing your backward step is from an ease of devel/debug perspective for
core? But say more so the concern is clear.

Keep in mind that this would just be C++ for the client *core*. Puppet very
much needs to continue to support its existing Ruby API for extensions
(e.g. type and providers, custom facts). And yes this implies that the API
needs to be *defined* better than it is today (which is undoubtedly going
to take some collective rolling up of sleeves).

And further, I'd really like to see non-Ruby scripting languages enabled to
participate as first-class citizens for the extension points - this
(coupled with better definition of core APIs) would really make the on-ramp
for new puppet users much lower friction.

Kylo

-- 
Kylo Ginsberg | [email protected] | irc: kylo | twitter: @kylog

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Puppet Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/puppet-users/CALsUZFHsJEV2iG7CVcjGCBBxK5MotiAcd%2Bvg_2rpXVDjy5Uc9A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to