Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:58:36 +0000 From: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade O(n^m)? Message-ID: <20070216025836.5f9555d0@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0702151017001.16360@hymn07.u.washington.edu> References: <20070215123958.GA35137@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.43.0702151017001.16360@hymn07.u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:17:00 -0800 (PST) youshi10@u.washington.edu wrote: > I wasn't trying to port the pkg_* and port* utils to C++ thinking > that I would magically get more optimized code. Sure, C++ is much > better than ruby at optimizations if done correctly, but C++ is also > easier to screw up than ruby or perl or python, because you have the > power to shoot yourself in the foot easier (not as much as C or ASM, > but close). Surely that's the other way around, scripting languages are for "quick and dirty", C and C++ are used for multi-million line projects. > > The point was that with C++ we could finally get a set of > standardized tools and a common interface for FreeBSD for managing > ports / packages which could be included in the base system, not a > bunch of little specialized tools and packages. That sounds like Trebant advocacy to me. I'm all for giving the ports system a more flexible API for port-tools, particularly in the area of dependency management,but different people have different priorities. I like having a choice. Just before I tried FreeBSD I tried Gentoo, and emerge tied itself in knots trying to upgrade Gnome. I'm pretty sure that portupgrade would have failed on that upgrade too, but based on its record with Gnome, Portmanager would likely have taken it in its stride. OTOH it often takes several times as long as an optimally fast solution, and most people don't like that.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070216025836.5f9555d0>