On Tuesday, 15 May 2007 at 1:05:07 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Tom Evans wrote:
> >On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 22:17 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >>Ruby's nice, but it's built on Perl so I have suspicions on its overall
> >>usability / speed given my experience with Perl over the past 4 months
> >>daily for work :(.. Ruby's just the new big thing for programming
> >>languages, so everyone's into it. Kind of like how Java was compared to
> >>C/C++ a few years back. But once everything dies down people will
> >>realize that they'll still have to program in C/C++/Perl for real-world
> >>Python seems better than Ruby from what I can see, but I really don't
> >>like the mandatory indentation thing. Ew..
> >Rubies are better Perls. That's the only connection between the two. One
> >day, a Japanese programmer got fed up with Perl, and wrote a better
> >language (for varying meanings of better).
> >Its not based or built on Perl in any respect.
> >Python and Ruby both have the same targets; to speed development time
> >and increase programmer productivity.
> But one must make a Perl before one can make a Ruby. Maybe that was what
> I was trying to aim for.
> Ruby's nice, but it seems like it's going to be a bit passe in a few
> years like Java was for compilable / interpretable languages.
> firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "email@example.com"
None of this matters
My only point is that if you need something quick to explore the format of
pkgdb.db or INDEX.db you are pretty well assured of finding a tool you
can work with; Perl, Python, or Ruby. If these aren't sufficient use C.
The pkg_* tools are written in C so in C they will be modified; but no
harm in doing initial exploration and prototyping with something else.
Let's stay focused!