[arch-general] replacement for clyde

[Philipp Überbacher]

Excerpts from Cédric Girard's message of 2011-08-19 18:06:53 +0200:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Thomas Dziedzic <gostrc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > I agree that your arguments have a valid point of view all the way up
> > to this point where you lost me.
> > For me, "lack of quality" is in the same category as "lack of quality
> > impacts speed"
> > For example, lets have the same badly written algorithm compiled with
> > no optimization and the other being compiled with -O999 ZOMG!!
> > It doesn't matter to me if one ruins your system faster, it will still
> > do the same thing.
> > This is why I think the "lack of quality impacts speed" issue being
> > completely different from "lack of quality" is invalid.
> 
> 
> I will try to explain my point with an example. Take a bash script which
> needs to find some string into a file.
> Let's do this the ugly way:
> echo $(cat $file) | grep -q "%PROVIDES%.*$1"
> Let's do this the correct way:
> grep -q "%PROVIDES%.*$1" $file
> 
> If both take the same resources to execute, you may say: OK, the first one
> is ugly but I don't really care because both give the same result and there
> is no performance impact.
> Now, if the first one appears to be way slower than the second one, the
> situation is different because not only it impacts the developer (complex
> code hard to understand and maintains) but it also impacts the end user
> (have to wait longer than needed).
> 
> This example was one real example taken from yaourt at the state it was in
> January 2010. There is nothing ugly in the way it will not work or break
> your system. It was just ugly and slow code.

Well, it was buggy as it couldn't handle some files, like packages with
'+' in their names (example: lv2-c++-tools). Not sure this is fixed in
the meantime. I use slurpy since a long time, it works with every
package (it just has search, download and upload, no building included).