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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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? > >