Re: wget2
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Alan Thomas wrote: Sorry for the misunderstanding. Honestly, Java would be a great language for what wget does. Perhaps, but not for where wget is used: on numerous platforms as a stand-alone downloadable tool, including on embedded and small-CPU devices. Environments where java doesn't excel. Lots of built-in support for web stuff. That's simply not true. It has some _basic_ support for some web protocols etc, but that's far from enough for a tool such as wget.
Re: wget2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hrvoje Niksic wrote: Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I vote we stick with C. Java is slower and more prone to environmental problems. not really. because of its JIT compiler, Java is often as fast as C/C++, and sometimes even significantly faster. Not if you count startup time, which is crucial for a program like Wget. Memory use is also incomparable. Yes, and you're right that this is crucial for Wget. However, I do not believe that it is as crucial for Wget 2. Wget is heavily used for single-file fetches; I do not anticipate that to be the primary use for Wget 2. They will have different application domains, and different target markets (see the Thoughts on Wget 2.0 thread). This is a major reason why I advocate the name change, as I don't think the new beast can appropriately be called by the same name as what people are now accustomed to. The New Wget will almost certainly be bulkier, more expensive to build and run, and depend on a variety of other libraries and tools. It will also be more powerful and flexible, hopefully justifying these costs. But Wget's current domain will always find great use in a sleek and still-very-powerful web fetching tool with a smaller footprint and dependencies set. In essence, this drive for a New Wget is my way of saying, all these fancy features like multiple connections, abstracted interfaces with the filesystem, etc, support for MetaFile and JavaScript, etc, etc, are _not_appropriate_for_Wget_; while still allowing these ideas to continue (in another form). :) - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHUFMu7M8hyUobTrERAmsrAJ9hpPCUI8IE1pKLmthCkU7MQIb9oACeIFIP TxzIeIJnDWRKUBpxdIfQzrQ= =RJwS -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: wget2
On Friday 30 November 2007 14:48:07 David Ginger wrote: what do you think? Python. i was asking what you guys think of my write a prototype using a dynamic language then incrementally rewrite everything in C proposal, and not trying to start yet another programming language flame war ;-) i believe that for sheer application prototyping purposes, ruby and python are equally good. in addition, i know and like both of them. so, in case micah is actually evaluating ruby and python, i don't really care which one of them he will finally choose to adopt. -- Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem... Mauro Tortonesi http://www.tortonesi.com University of Ferrara - Dept. of Eng. http://www.ing.unife.it GNU Wget - HTTP/FTP file retrieval tool http://www.gnu.org/software/wget Deep Space 6 - IPv6 for Linux http://www.deepspace6.net Ferrara Linux User Group http://www.ferrara.linux.it
Re: wget2
On Friday 30 November 2007 11:59:45 Hrvoje Niksic wrote: Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I vote we stick with C. Java is slower and more prone to environmental problems. not really. because of its JIT compiler, Java is often as fast as C/C++, and sometimes even significantly faster. Not if you count startup time, which is crucial for a program like Wget. Memory use is also incomparable. right. i was not suggesting to implement wget2 in Java, anyway ;-) but we could definitely make good use of dynamic languages such as Ruby (my personal favorite) or Python, at least for rapid prototyping purposes. both Ruby and Python support event-driven I/O (http://rubyeventmachine.com for Ruby, and http://code.google.com/p/pyevent/ for Python) and asynch DNS (http://cares.rubyforge.org/ for Ruby and http://code.google.com/p/adns-python/ for Python) and both are relatively easy to interface with C code. writing a small prototype for wget2 in Ruby or Python at first, and then incrementally rewrite it in C would save us a lot of development time, IMVHO. what do you think? -- Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem... Mauro Tortonesi http://www.tortonesi.com University of Ferrara - Dept. of Eng. http://www.ing.unife.it GNU Wget - HTTP/FTP file retrieval tool http://www.gnu.org/software/wget Deep Space 6 - IPv6 for Linux http://www.deepspace6.net Ferrara Linux User Group http://www.ferrara.linux.it
Re: wget2
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Mauro Tortonesi wrote: not really. because of its JIT compiler, Java is often as fast as C/C++, and sometimes even significantly faster. And GCJ can be asked to compile Java to native machine code too. I think Java per se would be OK as a programming language if it were not for its ridiculously huge standard library. But rewriting Wget just as a proof of concept does not seem a particularly exciting way of spending time. Anyone is free to do so though I presume. ;-) Maciej
Re: wget2
On Friday 30 November 2007 03:29:05 Josh Williams wrote: On 11/29/07, Alan Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry for the misunderstanding. Honestly, Java would be a great language for what wget does. Lots of built-in support for web stuff. However, I was kidding about that. wget has a ton of great functionality, and I am a reformed C/C++ programmer (or a recent Java convert). But I love using wget! I vote we stick with C. Java is slower and more prone to environmental problems. not really. because of its JIT compiler, Java is often as fast as C/C++, and sometimes even significantly faster. Wget needs to be as independent as we can possibly make it. A lot of the systems that wget is used on (including mine) do not even have Java installed. That would be a HUGE requirement for many people. i totally agree. -- Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem... Mauro Tortonesi http://www.tortonesi.com University of Ferrara - Dept. of Eng. http://www.ing.unife.it GNU Wget - HTTP/FTP file retrieval tool http://www.gnu.org/software/wget Deep Space 6 - IPv6 for Linux http://www.deepspace6.net Ferrara Linux User Group http://www.ferrara.linux.it
Re: wget2
On Friday 30 November 2007 13:45:08 Mauro Tortonesi wrote: On Friday 30 November 2007 11:59:45 Hrvoje Niksic wrote: Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I vote we stick with C. Java is slower and more prone to environmental problems. not really. because of its JIT compiler, Java is often as fast as C/C++, and sometimes even significantly faster. Not if you count startup time, which is crucial for a program like Wget. Memory use is also incomparable. right. i was not suggesting to implement wget2 in Java, anyway ;-) but we could definitely make good use of dynamic languages such as Ruby (my personal favorite) or Python, at least for rapid prototyping purposes. both Ruby and Python support event-driven I/O (http://rubyeventmachine.com for Ruby, and http://code.google.com/p/pyevent/ for Python) and asynch DNS (http://cares.rubyforge.org/ for Ruby and http://code.google.com/p/adns-python/ for Python) and both are relatively easy to interface with C code. writing a small prototype for wget2 in Ruby or Python at first, and then incrementally rewrite it in C would save us a lot of development time, IMVHO. what do you think? Python.
Re: wget2
Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I vote we stick with C. Java is slower and more prone to environmental problems. not really. because of its JIT compiler, Java is often as fast as C/C++, and sometimes even significantly faster. Not if you count startup time, which is crucial for a program like Wget. Memory use is also incomparable.
Re: wget2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, Mauro Tortonesi wrote: not really. because of its JIT compiler, Java is often as fast as C/C++, and sometimes even significantly faster. And GCJ can be asked to compile Java to native machine code too. I think Java per se would be OK as a programming language if it were not for its ridiculously huge standard library. But rewriting Wget just as a proof of concept does not seem a particularly exciting way of spending time. Anyone is free to do so though I presume. ;-) Ah, well, the rewrite is pretty much inevitable. Wget 2 is too different in scope and functionality for it to be otherwise. And rapid prototyping _is_ desirable. I think prototyping is the wrong word, though, and incrementally rewriting in C is probably unrealistic. A prototype is something that proves a concept, but is written specifically to be thrown away: it doesn't do its job fully and/or robustly. I'm not interested in writing that. Similarly, once a working version is written, in any language, I personally would not plan to reimplement it in another (which is perhaps what you meant when you were talking about rewriting?). As you say, though, others are free to do so :) - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHUFGw7M8hyUobTrERAhhwAKCNnAvvuyqhDeYYawmdNhTFEI3hLgCfRPdF wxAoUqCjd0i0TN/P+Ok7WUw= =zCU0 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: wget2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alan Thomas wrote: What is wget2? Any plans to move to Java? (Of course, the latter will not be controversial. :) Java is not likely. The most likely language is probably still C, especially as that's where our scant human resource assets are specialized currently. I have toyed with thoughts of C++ or Python, however - especially as the use of higher-level languages could allow more rapid development, which is nice, given our (again) scant assets. :) The truth is, it's too early to say, given that work hasn't even begun to have... begun. :D C still remains by far the most portable language (though of course, writing it portably is tricky ;) ). But that's a bigger issue for the existing Wget's purposes probably, than new-fangled Wget 2. For information on what is planned for Wget 2, check out the Next Generation and Unofficially Supported sections of this page: http://wget.addictivecode.org/FeatureSpecifications, and particularly, this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/wget%40sunsite.dk/index.html#10511 - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHT1MR7M8hyUobTrERAme+AKCLZMI3z+BDFTnm79u9iamLeb3D4QCePntr 0K1Be3gM/BkL0k8lswD1fu8= =pg5N -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: wget2
On Friday 30 November 2007 00:02:25 Micah Cowan wrote: Alan Thomas wrote: What is wget2? Any plans to move to Java? (Of course, the latter will not be controversial. :) Java is not likely. The most likely language is probably still C, especially as that's where our scant human resource assets are specialized currently. I have toyed with thoughts of C++ or Python, however - especially as the use of higher-level languages could allow more rapid development, which is nice, given our (again) scant assets. I'd vote for Python :-) :) The truth is, it's too early to say, given that work hasn't even begun to have... begun. :D C still remains by far the most portable language (though of course, writing it portably is tricky ;) ). But that's a bigger issue for the existing Wget's purposes probably, than new-fangled Wget 2. For information on what is planned for Wget 2, check out the Next Generation and Unofficially Supported sections of this page: http://wget.addictivecode.org/FeatureSpecifications, and particularly, this thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/wget%40sunsite.dk/index.html#10511 Thanks for the links:-) I really liked this idea - An API for developers to write their own dynamically-loaded plugins What I'm looking at wget for is saving streamed mp3 from a radio station, crazy but true.. such is life.
wget2
What is wget2? Any plans to move to Java? (Of course, the latter will not be controversial. :) Alan
Re: wget2
On Nov 29, 2007 3:48 PM, Alan Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is wget2? Any plans to move to Java? (Of course, the latter will not be controversial. :) Troll ;-)
Re: wget2
On Nov 29, 2007 4:02 PM, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alan Thomas wrote: What is wget2? Any plans to move to Java? (Of course, the latter will not be controversial. :) Java is not likely. The most likely language is probably still C, ... I think he's a troll because one of the top google hits for wget2 is a short little java program he's apparently trying to draw attention to.
Re: wget2
On 11/29/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Alan has prior history on this list. Check the archives: yeah, I remember him. And is it just me, or does it seem that something's going to go down tonight with wget 2? ;-)
Re: wget2
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Honestly, Java would be a great language for what wget does. Lots of built-in support for web stuff. However, I was kidding about that. wget has a ton of great functionality, and I am a reformed C/C++ programmer (or a recent Java convert). But I love using wget! Alan
Re: wget2
On 11/29/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well don't look at _me_; I'm not the one who brought it up! ;) heh. I wasn't looking for some grand unveiling. It just seems that it seems to be attracting a lot of attention, and we should probably start putting more effort into it. I'm going to re-read some of the current Wget code tonight and start playing around with my own attempts of a wget2. I think we should simplify the name for this release to something like the `fetch` command (which is available, btw ;-).
Re: wget2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Josh Williams wrote: On 11/29/07, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Alan has prior history on this list. Check the archives: yeah, I remember him. And is it just me, or does it seem that something's going to go down tonight with wget 2? ;-) Well don't look at _me_; I'm not the one who brought it up! ;) - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHT2pZ7M8hyUobTrERAqRdAJ9Kn5c0Ik6tbBmm5cddaCX74GhJPwCgkou2 wQ8xmM6cDbxmT25BQ00bpT4= =Aa2u -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: wget2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tony Godshall wrote: On Nov 29, 2007 4:02 PM, Micah Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alan Thomas wrote: What is wget2? Any plans to move to Java? (Of course, the latter will not be controversial. :) Java is not likely. The most likely language is probably still C, ... I think he's a troll because one of the top google hits for wget2 is a short little java program he's apparently trying to draw attention to. Wow. I thought you were joking, because of the Java bit (plus you added a winking smiley: mixed messages, man). That Alan is trolling seems very unlikely, as - The Java program you refer to is about 20 lines of code, and will bring no one any useful traffic. - Alan has prior history on this list. Check the archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]q=from:%22Alan+Thomas%22 - -- Micah J. Cowan Programmer, musician, typesetting enthusiast, gamer... http://micah.cowan.name/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHT2lr7M8hyUobTrERArUSAJwLn+LdR7z9TNsqNWFQZquOA1ATMQCfRkBK 8JugIDSZ0d1K/B58qh3Fhbk= =3cL9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: wget2
On 11/29/07, Alan Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry for the misunderstanding. Honestly, Java would be a great language for what wget does. Lots of built-in support for web stuff. However, I was kidding about that. wget has a ton of great functionality, and I am a reformed C/C++ programmer (or a recent Java convert). But I love using wget! I vote we stick with C. Java is slower and more prone to environmental problems. Wget needs to be as independent as we can possibly make it. A lot of the systems that wget is used on (including mine) do not even have Java installed. That would be a HUGE requirement for many people.
