[arch-general] Re: pacman new generation
nsebrecht at piing.fr
Tue Nov 22 10:53:53 EST 2011
The 22/11/11, Rodrigo Amorim Bahiense wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 13:36, Taylor Hedberg wrote:
> >You can't seriously be suggesting that switching to Haskell would
> >increase the size of the pacman developer pool.
Notice I didn't support Haskell. I'm talking about high-level languages
in general. Not all of these languages are widely used nor very scalable
for a package manager.
> > I
> >don't think there's any compelling reason to rewrite pacman in another
I already gave some good reasons in this thread, though.
> Code language should not be chosen based on popularity. C is used in
> most unix-like software because of its quality and not as a
> consequence of the available developer pool for it.
I tend to agree.
More information about the arch-general