Re: new sysinstall

[Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai <asmodai@xxxxxx>]

-On [20030901 11:22], Ben Laurie (ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>I've never touched Ruby, so no opinion there. Hmmm, is there no
>light-weight rigorous scripting language? Is Ruby it, perhaps?

Mmm.  I wouldn't count Ruby as a light-weight scripting language.
Although you can do very powerful things with it in a few lines.  At
least it is true OO in its idealogy and doesn't pretend to be, e.g. like
perl.

I've done too little Python yet to comment on that, but one of my
personal pet peeves with it was the forcing of whitespace to be
essential to the flow of the code.  (*awaits rabid Python lovers to
attack him now*)  From what I know Python can do nice things as easily
as Ruby can, for example.

Lately I've been looking at Pike as well.  Kind of a cross between OO
concepts and C.  I think this is very interesting since most people here
know C and some OO concepts are not lost on them either.  So it gives
you kind of the best of both worlds perhaps.

OTOH, maybe Objective C is interesting as well in this aspect.

But then again, isn't this whole thread perhaps overengineering the
installation idea?

I mean, people are complaining about a base blessed language.  But who
says it is part of the base?  I do not entirely understand why this has
to be a prerequisite.
If you are tracking CVS then you could make language X a prerequisite if
a person wants to rebuild the configuration tool.  This solves the base
language issue since a person would need to install it from ports.

-- 
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai
PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7  9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625B
http://www.tendra.org/   | http://www.in-nomine.org/~asmodai/diary/
What is the thing, that builds our Dreams, yet slips away from us..?