Jeff Gerritsen wrote:
> I believe a healthy discussion on the future of LSMB is needed, although I'm
> concerned about two issues, one being discussed and one not being discussed!
>
> The concerns I have are about the one issue being discussed may degenerate
> into unproductive language and plat
> Here is my view:
>
> we are far better to stick with one language (probably Perl) for the
> official LedgerSMB core distribution. Eventually, we want an ability
Well one language for core is obviously smart (although I can see some
interesting points for using C in places possibly).
> to eas
Correction:
Gmail messed up my URL:
http://www.ledgersmb.org/community/
On 1/22/07, Chris Travers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/22/07, Jeff Gerritsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I believe a healthy discussion on the future of LSMB is needed, although I'm
> > concerned about two issues, one
On 1/22/07, Jeff Gerritsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe a healthy discussion on the future of LSMB is needed, although I'm
> concerned about two issues, one being discussed and one not being discussed!
>
> The concerns I have are about the one issue being discussed may degenerate
> into u
I believe a healthy discussion on the future of LSMB is needed, although I'm
concerned about two issues, one being discussed and one not being discussed!
The concerns I have are about the one issue being discussed may degenerate
into unproductive language and platform wars - although (I believe)
On 1/22/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jeff Kowalczyk wrote:
> > --- Chris Travers wrote:
> >> If we rewrite the entire application at once, I am quite afraid it
> >> will never be completed simply because it is such a big task.
> >
> > I agree with this, a rewrite with redesign [
On 1/22/07, Jeff Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with this, a rewrite with redesign [1] would take way too long for any
> new or SL user to remain interested in SMB.
>
> > Rewriting in Perl gives us the ability to have a useful application
> > while we are working on it.
>
> What ab
Jeff Kowalczyk wrote:
> --- Chris Travers wrote:
>> If we rewrite the entire application at once, I am quite afraid it
>> will never be completed simply because it is such a big task.
>
> I agree with this, a rewrite with redesign [1] would take way too long for any
> new or SL user to remain inte
--- Chris Travers wrote:
> If we rewrite the entire application at once, I am quite afraid it
> will never be completed simply because it is such a big task.
I agree with this, a rewrite with redesign [1] would take way too long for any
new or SL user to remain interested in SMB.
> Rewriting in P
Chris Travers wrote:
> Every language has the possibility of running into cross-platform
> issues on some level. I have found, for example. that Perl has a few
> Windows issues, but these can be easily worked around. I would expect
> that other scripting languages may run into issues with braind-
Ed W wrote:
>
>>> From a crossplatform point of view I would have thought that Perl
>>> was actually about the best supported tool out there...?
>>>
>>
>> No actually Python or Java is going to give us the best capability there.
>>
>
> It's not really relevant, but I still reckon that Pe
Every language has the possibility of running into cross-platform
issues on some level. I have found, for example. that Perl has a few
Windows issues, but these can be easily worked around. I would expect
that other scripting languages may run into issues with braind-dead
Win32 API behavior too (
From a crossplatform point of view I would have thought that Perl was
actually about the best supported tool out there...?
No actually Python or Java is going to give us the best capability there.
It's not really relevant, but I still reckon that Perl is more widely
supported than
13 matches
Mail list logo
