Am Thu 10 Feb 2011 03:47:56 PM CET schrieb Klaus Kaempf <[email protected]>:
* 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.
Using 'dlopen' and 'dlsym' as the killer feature of dynamic languages
is really not fair. Please be honest in promoting Ruby.
There is IMO only 1 argument supporting usage of dynamic languages:
Program can be inspected and changed while running in production.
And this ^^^ is only useful for always running services. Erlang excels
in this. But it is really not the use case of YaST.
Garbage collection, simple syntax, working with collections or ability
to express ideas clearly is not just domain of Duck Typed languages.
OTOH good luck with establishing a stable interface in a Duck Typed
language. This can only be done with lots of documentation, convention
and tests. But it cannot be enforced or verified.
Python solved interfaces with zope-interface, which allows the
programmer to specify "how do the data look like". Duck Typing by
itself doesn't need to be bad. Going all the way and being unable to
describe data structures definitely is. Most importantly because data
structure description is an important communication channel for
programmers.
Martin
Klaus
---
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
