language choice of alfs

Jeremy Huntwork jeremy at jenacon.net
Sun Dec 19 09:01:55 PST 2004


Hui Zhou wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 19, 2004 at 08:39:02AM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
>> Hui Zhou wrote:
>>
>>> IMHO, C is the worst choice for the job. ATM, I recommend python. 
>>
>>
>> Hui,
>>
>> Sorry, but this isn't the way to go about it. If you want people to 
>> take your suggestions seriously, you're going to *have* to give us a 
>> reason, or even better, reasons for your preference. We're not going 
>> to change our mind simply because you tell us to.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Huntwork
>>
>
> It is fine you guys don't take my opinion seriously. I didn't expect 
> so. And I am not suggesting, just throw in a choice into the pool so
> some developers may look at the decision one more time. The final 
> reason will be the availibility of developer and their programming 
> experiences, not the suitability of languages.
>
> The main reason not to use C is because C is too low level as a 
> language. To achieve a same function in C compared to implementing in 
> a higher level language, the c coder need struggle with the language 
> itself for significant protion of time. Disregard the effort needed, C 
> can offer the best performance maybe next to assembly, no question. 
> But I don't see the speed is of any concern to the alfs project. The 
> security risks, maintainence cost and development effectiveness weighs 
> much more. As to the libraries, simple code within the library scope 
> can be very neat to both codeing and reading, but there is not much 
> creativity in it, is there. As soon as functions beyond the library 
> are added in, the program quick grow into some awful look. A typical 
> development with C is to start from scratch rather than to reuse the 
> code. C, and C++ codes are not really useable when it reaches a 
> certain size unless they are wrapped into some sort of black box which 
> requires a lot more effort and seals in a lot of risks and bloats.
>
> C++ is better than C for experienced programmar who knows which 
> features to use and which to avoid in the aspect of lowering the 
> maintainence cost and maybe coding effectiveness, it shares all the 
> vulnerbility with C and even more. The grammar of C++ is a nightmare.
> Both C and C++ uses the terrible preprocessing mechanism. The human 
> mind only works at 5 +/- 2. With multiple #ifdef's, even a very simple 
> program can be impossible to read. Try to read the code of less -- 
> it's just a pager for god's sake.
>
> Java is much better, C# is even better. However, both also contained a 
> lot of enterprise hypes, one of the reason many programmer especially 
> in the open source community still choose C over them(due to distaste 
> not reason). Another reason is the large or dominant code base in the 
> unix world.
> Functional programming languages are potentially better as shown by 
> many academic publications. However it requires a much different mind 
> to effectively both use and read or maintain. I was trained from 
> pascal and C, and definitely lack the suitable mind to even dare to 
> comment. Why lisp existed so long but still has such limited code base?
>
> Perl and Python and other scripting language lacks the perfomance as 
> they lay heavey load on the runtime. I generally against the policy to 
> sacrifice runtime to gain development time. If the program will be run 
> by 1 milion user, the balance is usertime * 1 milion against a few 
> developer's time, the user wins most of the time. However, alfs is not 
> targeted for large user base, so ease of development should be the 
> major base. Scripting languages are designed as glue code which is 
> right in the alley of alfs.
>
> Bash script doesn't qualify as a programming language really, almost 
> all the programming language concepts are against it except for some 
> very short ones.
>
> Perl is my language choice for POC, but beyond that, it sucks majorly 
> due to lacking structural features.
>
> So I recommend python, same with ruby.
>
> Arguing which language is better often quickly become very ugly as the 
> opinion is largely experience based. So I am not tring to argue in any 
> way. Just to throw in my opinion to open the choices a little wider. 
> Whether or not you guys consider it or treat it as nonsense doesn't 
> really matter.
>
> Regards,
>

Thank you, Hui, this is much more what I was after. Well using Python or 
Ruby would allow me to help with the coding ;) (if that's a good thing :P)

I know we've talked about this before, and atm the decision has been 
made to use C, but Jamie, Boris, could you humor me for a moment and 
spell out the reasons why you feel C is better, similar to the way Hui 
has done? Please don't take this as hashing out the same old stuff, but 
as confirming which direction is better for the project. From what I 
recall, there wasn't anything comprehensive noted on why C seemed a 
better choice, though I know there were comments made here and there. I 
don't want to have the language decision based on personal preference, 
but on what is best for alfs.

Thanks,

--
Jeremy Huntwork




More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list