Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++

[Tomasz Czyż]

Why not haskell?

It's functional (like nix), can be compiled, in nixos, there is already
infrastructure for it.

2015-12-31 10:26 GMT+00:00 Anderson Torres :

> The main motivation is to get rid of dependencies. It would greatly
> help in porting Nix to other architectures and systems.
>
> 2015-12-31 4:06 GMT-02:00 stewart mackenzie :
> > This is our usage of Rust: https://github.com/fractalide/rustfbp
> > The nix scripts to build all the rust components with capnproto
> > dependencies in a deterministic fashion:
> > https://github.com/fractalide/fractalide
> > we use nix basically to replace make, it's still a WIP.
> >
> > I'm okay which most implementation languages used for nix, including
> > Perl. I'm merely sharing my opinion on Rust.
> > Though I would _like_ to see Rust used because of the barrage of
> > niceties associated with it.
> >
> > peace
> > /sjm
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Shea Levy  wrote:
> >> Nothing's stopping you from starting the conversion. If it's clearly
> >> better, it will be a lot easier to convince people once you have actual
> >> code to show.
> > ___
> > nix-dev mailing list
> > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
> > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
> ___
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>



-- 
Tomasz Czyż
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++

[Tomasz Czyż]

Domen, I think this evolved from why perl -> c++ not perl -> X. Not sure
this went to nix -> X.
But if decision was already made that c++ is the one, probably discussion
is over :)?

2015-12-31 11:13 GMT+00:00 Domen Kožar :

> I really don't see a correlation between rewriting perl parts in C++ and
> why/how we should rewrite Nix in a different language. Could we separate
> the threads?
>
>
> Mateusz, did you get an answer to your questions to be able to start
> contributing?
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:05 PM, stewart mackenzie 
> wrote:
>
>> Language features of the implementation language are generally lost when
>> implementing a new language.
>>
>> So we are left with: "can be compiled and existing infrastructure."
>>
>> Leveraging LLVM would be astute.
>>
>> On 31 Dec 2015 21:47, "Tomasz Czyż"  wrote:
>> >
>> > Why not haskell?
>> >
>> > It's functional (like nix), can be compiled, in nixos, there is already
>> infrastructure for it.
>>
>> ___
>> nix-dev mailing list
>> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
>> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>>
>>
>


-- 
Tomasz Czyż
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++

[Domen Kožar]

I really don't see a correlation between rewriting perl parts in C++ and
why/how we should rewrite Nix in a different language. Could we separate
the threads?


Mateusz, did you get an answer to your questions to be able to start
contributing?

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:05 PM, stewart mackenzie 
wrote:

> Language features of the implementation language are generally lost when
> implementing a new language.
>
> So we are left with: "can be compiled and existing infrastructure."
>
> Leveraging LLVM would be astute.
>
> On 31 Dec 2015 21:47, "Tomasz Czyż"  wrote:
> >
> > Why not haskell?
> >
> > It's functional (like nix), can be compiled, in nixos, there is already
> infrastructure for it.
>
> ___
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
>
>
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++

[Anderson Torres]

The main motivation is to get rid of dependencies. It would greatly
help in porting Nix to other architectures and systems.

2015-12-31 4:06 GMT-02:00 stewart mackenzie :
> This is our usage of Rust: https://github.com/fractalide/rustfbp
> The nix scripts to build all the rust components with capnproto
> dependencies in a deterministic fashion:
> https://github.com/fractalide/fractalide
> we use nix basically to replace make, it's still a WIP.
>
> I'm okay which most implementation languages used for nix, including
> Perl. I'm merely sharing my opinion on Rust.
> Though I would _like_ to see Rust used because of the barrage of
> niceties associated with it.
>
> peace
> /sjm
>
> On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Shea Levy  wrote:
>> Nothing's stopping you from starting the conversion. If it's clearly
>> better, it will be a lot easier to convince people once you have actual
>> code to show.
> ___
> nix-dev mailing list
> nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
> http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++

[Luca Bruno]

Nix is already C++. It's just that some tools are written in perl. Nix
certainly isn't going to be rewritten in another language, at this time
would be a waste of efforts in my opinion.
The perl->c++ is about reducing the nix closure even more, but translating
perl tools to c++.

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Tomasz Czyż  wrote:

> Domen, I think this evolved from why perl -> c++ not perl -> X. Not sure
> this went to nix -> X.
> But if decision was already made that c++ is the one, probably discussion
> is over :)?
>
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev

Re: [Nix-dev] Perl -> C++

[stewart mackenzie]

Language features of the implementation language are generally lost when
implementing a new language.

So we are left with: "can be compiled and existing infrastructure."

Leveraging LLVM would be astute.

On 31 Dec 2015 21:47, "Tomasz Czyż"  wrote:
>
> Why not haskell?
>
> It's functional (like nix), can be compiled, in nixos, there is already
infrastructure for it.
___
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev