Klaus Kaempf write: > * Jiri Suchomel <[email protected]> [Feb 10. 2011 15:37]: > > > > But it is there now. And the result is, webYaST brings huge amount of > > packages > > because of YaST. > > Yes :-( Thats why we have to move away from static languages like YCP > to dynamic ones like Python or Ruby. Then a failing 'import' can be > handled gracefully and package dependencies are drastically reduced. >
It looks like new mantra called "dynamic languages". I am not sure if you ever try to handle such situations. Of course it is possible, but then code become really messy and also horrible to maintain and test it.... consider module A which depends on module B,C,D,E ( e.g. storage, language, time, bootloader and software management) then consider that A has if B,D is installed and C,E missing....and consider all combination. It is nice theory, but maintenance looks horrible for me. Benefit of dynamic languages is that you can change behavior based on runtime information, but changing behavior due to miss of completely modules is really bad idea....I don't see much ruby project which expects X different modules and acts different (if it is not abstract layer over it ). Pepa -- Josef Reidinger Appliance Toolkit team maintainer of perl-Bootloader, yast2-bootloader and parts of webyast and SLMS -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
