:: Re: [DNG] Debugging netman auto-con…
Inizio della pagina
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Autore: Hendrik Boom
Data:  
To: dng
Oggetto: Re: [DNG] Debugging netman auto-connect.
On Sat, Sep 12, 2015 at 08:38:40PM +0000, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> It depends completely on the random guy. :)
> If you were a knowledgeable advocate of Guile and saw the same risks of "winging it" with C strings, then there'd now be at least two devs with a vested interest in a port of the relevant functionality.


All the languages I mentioned -- Modula 3, OCaml, and Guile (as a
Scheme dialect that interfaces well with C) would be better than C if
your purpose is a lot of string handling.

OCaml and Guile are already present in Debian, so they have a natural
advantage.

OCaml is stically types, which catches bugs fast

Guile is a GNU language, which may have some political
advantages.

-- hendrik

>
> Instead, I agree with the essence of your response.
>
> -Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>      On Saturday, September 12, 2015 2:26 PM, tilt! <tilt@???> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> no please! I was kidding, as indicated by smileys interleaved with my
> postings!  :-D
>
> BTW if you have the time to do it, and if you think it brings you
> something, why should a random guy from the internet like i be the one
> who gives thumbs up or down?
>
> Should it be your serious intention to present a replacement for the
> existing "netman" backend executable that is completely written in a
> language i came up with on a whim, by Googeling for LISP dialects,
> chances are that it will not be considered.
>
> In any case, Ennius writes:
>
> Otio qui nescit uti
> plus negoti habet quam cum est negotium in negotio.
>
> He who does not know how to use leisure
> has more of work than when there is work in work.
>
> Best regards,
> T.
>
> On 09/12/2015 07:39 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> > Guile it is.
> > Just so we're clear-- I am  assuming you understand why I want to do
> > this, and that you will defend the choice of language against
> > bike-shedders and Socratic bombers.  (Though of course you don't have
> > to defend my actual code.)  If both those assumptions are true then
> > I'll get started.
> > -Jonathan
> > On Saturday, September 12, 2015 12:43 PM, tilt! <tilt@???> wrote:
> > Hi Jonathan,
> >
> > On 09/12/2015 06:04 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> > > Hi tilt!
> > > Is this a serious response?  I ask because the other candidates
> > > -- an obscure language and a dead language-- were not.
> > >
> > > If so tell me which dialect to use.
> >
> > No, it's *not* a serious response.  Had i been serious, i had
> > requested Guile. ;-)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > T.
>
>
>
>


> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng