On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:45:23PM -0500, Kirk Strauser wrote: > On Tuesday 06 July 2004 11:32 pm, Steve Kargl wrote: > > The discussion is about integrating an cvsup knock-off into the base > > system. Can you say bloat? Can you say bugs? ... > that a client-only version in C would be much more heavily developed than the > current ezm3 version. In turn, this should reduce bugs and the eliminate > the need to install what is effectively a single-program language. What bugs? I'm not aware of any CVSup bugs -- that doesn't mean at least one doesn't exist, but I'd love to know what that bug is. > >> For example, OpenBSD doesn't have an m3 port for non-x86 platforms > > > So, let Theo write a m3 port. > > I wish he would, because it would probably be more portable then the current > system, which would allow more people to use it, which would turn more > developer eyes toward it, which would give us a better tool to use. As it > stands, cvsup is "that weird thing that FreeBSD uses". I think that everyone that bitches about CVSup being written in Modula-3 hasn't looked at what the language features of Modula-3 are (OO, good exceptions, threading built into the language, simple GUI, ...) that they grossly underestimate the effort to write CVSup in some other language. JDP choose M3 because it was a very good language for the job -- C and C++ isn't. We've gone too far in our snooty opinion that if it ain't C/C++ it is crap. Modula-3, Ada, and Eiffel are very fine application languages, and CVSup is an _application_. -- -- David (obrien_at_FreeBSD.org)Received on Wed Jul 07 2004 - 05:00:52 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:00 UTC