Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++
Why not haskell? It's functional (like nix), can be compiled, in nixos, there is already infrastructure for it. 2015-12-31 10:26 GMT+00:00 Anderson Torres: > The main motivation is to get rid of dependencies. It would greatly > help in porting Nix to other architectures and systems. > > 2015-12-31 4:06 GMT-02:00 stewart mackenzie : > > This is our usage of Rust: https://github.com/fractalide/rustfbp > > The nix scripts to build all the rust components with capnproto > > dependencies in a deterministic fashion: > > https://github.com/fractalide/fractalide > > we use nix basically to replace make, it's still a WIP. > > > > I'm okay which most implementation languages used for nix, including > > Perl. I'm merely sharing my opinion on Rust. > > Though I would _like_ to see Rust used because of the barrage of > > niceties associated with it. > > > > peace > > /sjm > > > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Shea Levy wrote: > >> Nothing's stopping you from starting the conversion. If it's clearly > >> better, it will be a lot easier to convince people once you have actual > >> code to show. > > ___ > > nix-dev mailing list > > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > -- Tomasz Czyż ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++
Domen, I think this evolved from why perl -> c++ not perl -> X. Not sure this went to nix -> X. But if decision was already made that c++ is the one, probably discussion is over :)? 2015-12-31 11:13 GMT+00:00 Domen Kožar: > I really don't see a correlation between rewriting perl parts in C++ and > why/how we should rewrite Nix in a different language. Could we separate > the threads? > > > Mateusz, did you get an answer to your questions to be able to start > contributing? > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:05 PM, stewart mackenzie > wrote: > >> Language features of the implementation language are generally lost when >> implementing a new language. >> >> So we are left with: "can be compiled and existing infrastructure." >> >> Leveraging LLVM would be astute. >> >> On 31 Dec 2015 21:47, "Tomasz Czyż" wrote: >> > >> > Why not haskell? >> > >> > It's functional (like nix), can be compiled, in nixos, there is already >> infrastructure for it. >> >> ___ >> nix-dev mailing list >> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl >> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev >> >> > -- Tomasz Czyż ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++
I really don't see a correlation between rewriting perl parts in C++ and why/how we should rewrite Nix in a different language. Could we separate the threads? Mateusz, did you get an answer to your questions to be able to start contributing? On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:05 PM, stewart mackenziewrote: > Language features of the implementation language are generally lost when > implementing a new language. > > So we are left with: "can be compiled and existing infrastructure." > > Leveraging LLVM would be astute. > > On 31 Dec 2015 21:47, "Tomasz Czyż" wrote: > > > > Why not haskell? > > > > It's functional (like nix), can be compiled, in nixos, there is already > infrastructure for it. > > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev > > ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++
The main motivation is to get rid of dependencies. It would greatly help in porting Nix to other architectures and systems. 2015-12-31 4:06 GMT-02:00 stewart mackenzie: > This is our usage of Rust: https://github.com/fractalide/rustfbp > The nix scripts to build all the rust components with capnproto > dependencies in a deterministic fashion: > https://github.com/fractalide/fractalide > we use nix basically to replace make, it's still a WIP. > > I'm okay which most implementation languages used for nix, including > Perl. I'm merely sharing my opinion on Rust. > Though I would _like_ to see Rust used because of the barrage of > niceties associated with it. > > peace > /sjm > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Shea Levy wrote: >> Nothing's stopping you from starting the conversion. If it's clearly >> better, it will be a lot easier to convince people once you have actual >> code to show. > ___ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++
Nix is already C++. It's just that some tools are written in perl. Nix certainly isn't going to be rewritten in another language, at this time would be a waste of efforts in my opinion. The perl->c++ is about reducing the nix closure even more, but translating perl tools to c++. On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Tomasz Czyżwrote: > Domen, I think this evolved from why perl -> c++ not perl -> X. Not sure > this went to nix -> X. > But if decision was already made that c++ is the one, probably discussion > is over :)? > ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++
Language features of the implementation language are generally lost when implementing a new language. So we are left with: "can be compiled and existing infrastructure." Leveraging LLVM would be astute. On 31 Dec 2015 21:47, "Tomasz Czyż"wrote: > > Why not haskell? > > It's functional (like nix), can be compiled, in nixos, there is already infrastructure for it. ___ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev