From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
	by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gentoo-soc+bounces-1072-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
	id 1Obbhq-0004AF-0b
	for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:59:38 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 44C0FE09F8;
	Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:59:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2860EE09F8
	for <gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:59:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [192.168.1.116] (dynamic-adsl-94-38-245-45.clienti.tiscali.it [94.38.245.45])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E87D66525A;
	Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:59:26 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4C471954.1090505@gentoo.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:59:16 +0200
From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.4) Gecko/20100708 Lightning/1.0b2pre Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-soc+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-soc+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-soc+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-soc.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-soc@lists.gentoo.org
CC: =?UTF-8?B?UGV0dGVyaSBSw6R0eQ==?= <betelgeuse@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-soc] libbash Weekly Update
References: <4C447338.7090401@gmail.com> <4C457BAA.4090708@gentoo.org> <20100720104027.GI6016@gentoo.org> <4C45BABE.4040809@gmail.com> <4C46CD36.2070403@gentoo.org> <4C46D115.4000007@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <4C46D115.4000007@gentoo.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: 1d481b99-69f6-4f57-bc88-fc069795571b
X-Archives-Hash: 39dabf7d97fc1733e580b127177b5843

On 07/21/2010 12:51 PM, Petteri R=C3=A4ty wrote:
> On 21.7.2010 13.34, Luca Barbato wrote:
>> On 07/20/2010 05:03 PM, Nathan Eloe wrote:
>>> I'm fine with using autotools.  I hadn't made the final decision yet =
(I
>>> was going to work on the build system tomorrow), so with this
>>> recommendation I will use that instead of cmake.  I haven't used eith=
er
>>> extensively (I know enough about both to do something very simple wit=
h
>>> either), so changing the build system won't throw me off very much.
>>>
>>> Staying with straight C is not something I am as comfortable with.  I=
've
>>> talked with my mentor about it, and we've decided that since the GCC
>>> does allow C++, it's a mature enough language to use.
>>
>> The problem is that it isn't. the gcc move to C++ might straight the
>> things out in the long term. in the middle one I'd be quite wary of th=
e
>> outcome.
>>
>=20
> We prefer developer productivity over issues that might not even exist.

our bugzilla and gcc one has plenty of examples regarding how well gcc
behaves regarding C++, this[1] is one that got me today ^^;

Anyway it's not so related to the project at hand. Still I wonder why
not using a quick language (e.g. ruby, python) for this project if the
aim is to have a prototype. C and C++ are useful if you plan to optimize
a lot.

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D262912




--=20

Luca Barbato
Gentoo/linux
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero