On 06/12/2014 21:55, Jaromil wrote:
> Yet I also appreciate Go as a rather well designed language,
> certainly better than Python.

If I could name one thing only that Rob Pike et al. got right in Go, it
would be the syntax for structured types. They're simple, elegant and
the annotations allow tools like serialization frameworks (protobuf or
json, just to name those I use most of the time) to "just work" with the
original definition. DRY at its finest :-)

That said, the static linking approach is kinda... well... ok, it sucks
- both from a bloat standpoint (no page sharing among processes - it
might not be a big deal on bare metal, but on a memory-constrained VM it
*is* a big deal) and from a security standpoint (as I said, security
issues down the stack trickle all the way to the top when it comes to
update management - also static executables have their address space
layout set in stone at compile time, which isn't exactly a good thing
nowadays).

Python... well, that's another language I like, but it has a whole slew
of different problems (the sorely outdated TLS implementation in 2.7,
just to name something that *really* makes me cringe).

But at least it's a scripting language and it has good support in Debian :-)

> I also think we should be picky and conservative about the quality of
> contributions. I'm not particularly enthusiastic about democratic
> approaches to codebases and advise to value quality over quantity.

Review Board, anyone? :-)

(yes, it's written in Python, but the alternatives are far far worse,
both in terms of workflow and hosting language (effing Java))

> ciao

Divertitevi anche per me che sto qui a bestemmiare con LaTeX e OpenStack
- su CentOS, tra l'altro :-P

Ciao,
--
Matteo Panella