Just curious, why not just use C/C++? thanks in advance ! Lincong
--- On Mon, 6/15/09, David G. Mackay mackay_d@bellsouth.net wrote:
From: David G. Mackay mackay_d@bellsouth.net Subject: Re: [CentOS] which programming language for server-side admin tasks To: "CentOS mailing list" centos@centos.org Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 3:16 PM
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 10:04 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Also, there are several engineers at Red Hat that
are very unhappy with
the impact that the 3.0 release is going to have
on them.
Yes but it has been obvious for a long time that
python does not
consider backwards compatibility to be
important. This shouldn't have
come as a surprise. By comparison, perl has been
around longer and
Judging by some of the comments on the fedora-devel list, it did anyway.
through more changes and yet about the only thing you
might have to
check on a program written for perl 1.x to run under
5.x would be
whether you have @ in double-quoted strings that you
wanted to remain
literal.
I used to do a lot of coding in perl, but I found that I liked python better. I still like python for quick and dirty one-offs, but I'm not going to use it for large and persistent projects.
One other consideration is that perl probably has the
current advantage
in terms of available code library modules.
Pretty much anything you
can imagine doing has already been done and
contributed to CPAN so often
the code you have to write yourself is trivial with
the modules doing
the bulk of the work. Java may be catching up in
this regard but I
don't think there is a central place to find available
code.
Google? ;)
I guess the real question is how well java is going to prosper under Oracle's ownership. Then again, with openjdk, it might not matter too much.
Dave
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
lincohn john wrote:
Just curious, why not just use C/C++? thanks in advance !
for server-side administration web console development ?? ouch.
writing clean portable C++ is very painful and requires extensive testing on each targetted platform. writing multithreaded C++ programs requires extreme care and a high level of expertise.
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 12:35 -0700, lincohn john wrote:
Just curious, why not just use C/C++? thanks in advance ! Lincong
This is a personal opinion, but C++ seems to be an exercise in masochism. C is basically a high level assembly language. Neither are all that portable. Granted, for sheer speed, C is probably as good as you'll get. Speed just isn't as big a factor these days. Who knows, if they'd had the processing power available today back in the 80's, maybe we'd all be using pascal p-code systems.
Dave
David G. Mackay wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 12:35 -0700, lincohn john wrote:
Just curious, why not just use C/C++? thanks in advance ! Lincong
This is a personal opinion, but C++ seems to be an exercise in masochism. C is basically a high level assembly language. Neither are all that portable. Granted, for sheer speed, C is probably as good as you'll get. Speed just isn't as big a factor these days. Who knows, if they'd had the processing power available today back in the 80's, maybe we'd all be using pascal p-code systems.
operating systems, servers like Apache, Sendmail, Postfix, things like Java JVM innards, those are written in C/C++
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 13:27 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
operating systems, servers like Apache, Sendmail, Postfix, things like Java JVM innards, those are written in C/C++
Mostly, yes. There is some assembly in most OSs. And, they're mostly in C. If you have to sink to C++ to get your programmers to code properly, you need new programmers.
Dave
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:14 PM, David G. Mackaymackay_d@bellsouth.net wrote:
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 12:35 -0700, lincohn john wrote:
Just curious, why not just use C/C++? thanks in advance ! Lincong
This is a personal opinion, but C++ seems to be an exercise in masochism. C is basically a high level assembly language. Neither are all that portable. Granted, for sheer speed, C is probably as good as you'll get. Speed just isn't as big a factor these days. Who knows, if they'd had the processing power available today back in the 80's, maybe we'd all be using pascal p-code systems.
If we had the processing power (and all the incredibly cheap HW that exists today), in the 80's, I wouldn't have had to write such efficient assembly language code... Much easier today, with cheap RAM, etc. C++ for an old timer, takes awhile to get an understanding of, because of the OO, but as a book I have says, before OO, approximately 50% of the projects ended in failure. I believe that is on the low side. Never used Pascal (wasn't that a teaching language?, but I did use PL/M-86.
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 15:31 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
If we had the processing power (and all the incredibly cheap HW that exists today), in the 80's, I wouldn't have had to write such efficient assembly language code... Much easier today, with cheap RAM, etc. C++ for an old timer, takes awhile to get an understanding of, because of the OO, but as a book I have says, before OO, approximately 50% of the projects ended in failure. I believe that is on the low side. Never used Pascal (wasn't that a teaching language?, but I did use PL/M-86.
OO is fine. Today, at least, there are much better implementations of in java, python, etc. C++ is just tortuous.
The pascal p-code implementation was, IIRC, implemented by UCSD. Pascal was then popularized by Borland.
Ahh for the good old days, when men were men, and memory upgrades involved fork lifts.
Dave
-
David G. Mackay -
John R Pierce -
Lanny Marcus -
lincohn john