Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 14:40:52 +0200 From: "army.of.root" <army.of.root@googlemail.com> To: Antxon <agoca80@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: C version of devd daemon. Message-ID: <4A339E54.80109@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <1244892110.1104.12.camel@localhost> References: <538f43900906120823w388f1c63ic8d0194017faca6d@mail.gmail.com> <20090612165518.GA15530@phenom.cordula.ws> <20090612172740.GA1952@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20090612175206.GA77895@freebsd.org> <20090612180906.GA12679@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20090612193614.GF48776@hoeg.nl> <20090612202839.GA93343@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20090612203032.GG48776@hoeg.nl> <e71790db0906121823o54e8e5c2m82c91b0a1ba6dbe4@mail.gmail.com> <20090613095738.GH48776@hoeg.nl> <1244892110.1104.12.camel@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Antxon wrote: > El sáb, 13-06-2009 a las 11:57 +0200, Ed Schouten escribió: >> * Carlos A. M. dos Santos <unixmania@gmail.com> wrote: >>> That's a different story. Reading man pages is not a functional >>> requirement, depending on the point of view. A system *can* run fine >>> even without manual pages (and the corresponding reader/formatter) >>> installed. >> And a typical FreeBSD webserver won't be affected by devd not being >> installed. I read a lot of manpages, but I think I've only changed devd >> related config files once or twice in my entire life. But we're drifting >> off. >> >> Rewriting devd in C, just because Clang doesn't support C++, is not a >> good argument. Clang itself is also written in C++. Even I (the >> maintainer of the clangbsd branch in SVN) think that a compiler that is >> not able to bootstrap itself cannot be considered a serious replacement >> for GCC at this time. >> > > Those are really good reasons. C++ is still needed to compile Clang, but > clang it's not the only compiler available at the moment. It's just > about choices. Is it worth to rewrite devd it in C? As I already did > that, it is not up to my to answer the question. > > Antxon. > Hi, it seems consistent to use C, especially when theres only one program left thats C++ (after groff is replaced with mdoc). And since devd is only a few loc it does not seem reasonable to argue with complexity. It does not cost anything (its already done), so why not just seriously consider using the C implemetation, when its code quality is as good. @Anxton: Could you post it somewhere? - It would really help this conversation if people could look at the actual code. best regards and many thanks for supporting *BSD you all!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4A339E54.80109>