I'll add my voice to this. The powerful vendors writing new languages must expand their breath, or face the consequences that some software is not going to get written in their languages. Better is very much muted by unportable.
> Hello Joerg, > > No objections from me portswise (although I'm no authority). > > I do however dislike the trend that every single filters in ports not > written by me is in go. At first I thought this was to display the > flexibility of the smtpd-api (I even recollect it was said, but I can't > find the mail which states so). But it's restricting to OpenBSD users > not running on amd64, arm, or i386. > Just yesterday there was someone who couldn't run a filter on sparc64 > because it was written in go[0]. If we as OpenBSD community value > portability over architectures these tools should be written in a > language that's just as portable. > If you want to demonstrate the flexibility of the API write it in > something new like ruby, C++, or even PHP or awk for all I care. > If you care about portability please use one of these (although > PHP is currently not supported on HPPA). > Maybe you could give libopensmtpd a go (pun intended). I reckon > it's not hard to use. > > Also the manpage is incorrect. It states [address] [limit], while > if you want to limit the address is non-optional (from reading the > code). So this should be [address [limit]]. > Also I don't like this syntax, because it gets confusing if the > amount of arguments grows (not saying it will happen here, just > bad practice). I'd rather see this as [-s address] [-l limit]. > > martijn@ > > [0] https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=157353099716261&w=2 > > On 11/13/19 1:32 AM, Joerg Jung wrote: > > Hi, > > > > please find attached a port for opensmtpd filter-clamav. > > > > Comments, OKs? > > > > Thanks, > > Regards, > > Joerg > > >
