Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage-NG implementation language(s)

[Marius Mauch <genone@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1375 bytes --]

On 12/06/03  Jason Stubbs wrote:

> On Saturday 06 December 2003 02:09, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > Seeing this "language war" on -dev I think I should say again that
> > the component model should make us free from language restrictions.
> > There is no sense in saying "we should use language XXX for
> > portage-ng" as the goal should be that each component can be
> > implemented in the best fitting language. So it should be possible
> > to have the dependency resolver in prolog, the ebuild parser in
> > perl, the frontend in python, the storage backend in C and so on. 
> 
> I believe this is already part of the requirements.

Yes, I just wanted to say it again as I saw the thread on -dev.

> I think the point is that even designing the global architecture
> should come before deciding on a language for the component
> interaction interface.

While I agree in general I think it's much easier to discuss the
architecture when we can use a uniform syntax. This doesn't have to be a
real language, Pseudo Code would work too but we would have to define
the syntax first, so we can choose the interface language right then
(and the number of choices isn't that large).

Marius

-- 
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]