totoro wrote: > I'd certainly be more likely to work on it if it were in c++.
And I would not even think about it if it was C++. > It'd probably get an efficiency boost, though. Unsubstantiated claim. It won't make the MySql connection faster, or the user's interaction faster, or the user's browser faster. The SlimServer doesn't to that much that is likely to get substantially faster in any language over another. Which breaks the language choice down to theology. Not very useful for discussion. > But really, I'm not sure why it would be rewritten. Has it been > profiled and determined to be too inefficient based on the language? People propose rewriting it because it is not in their current favorite language. And since it is not Snobol or Bliss, its not in my favorites either. Efficiency is overrated. Just go get a Quad processor system from Intel. > Rewriting a large scale application just for the fun of it or because > one has an aesthetic aversion to the language it's written in (which I > certainly have) doesn't seem like a particularly good idea to me. Correct, and changing something from the language that the current developers are productive in to some other language of the week is silly. Even a gross re-architecture raises questions that are hard. Should it be a plug=in to Apache? I'd like that, but lots of people don't want to run a full webserver. How about some heavily marketing solution using WebServices? Can the folks who bitch now about the Perl version running slow on their NAS device really expect to put a pig like J2EE on their systems? This thread, and others like it is pretty useless, and at best belongs over on developers. Patches welcome. -- Pat http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
