language choice of alfs

Jeremy Huntwork jeremy at
Sun Dec 19 09:03:13 PST 2004

Kevin P. Fleming wrote:

> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> 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.
> Well, even though I don't really much of a preference one way or the 
> other, I can supply some reasons to use Python instead of C (at least 
> for the first round):
> - quicker development time, as there is no need to build Makefiles, 
> compile & link, worry about differences between host systems, etc.
> - less time spent on building "infrastructure": data structures, 
> locking, multi-threading, networking, etc.
> Obviously all of this can (and has been) done in C, and will be again. 
> There are distinct advantages to building a "version 1" or "testbed" 
> to work out the protocols, syntaxes, etc. in a language that can do 
> more for you. When these things have been worked out, then it can be 
> converted to C for performance reasons (if there are any found).
> If you do decide to jump right in building in C, I'd suggest taking a 
> long look at both APR and glib2, as they provide a great deal of 
> things that an application can use and are platform-agnostic already.

Thanks Kevin. I will take these under consideration.

Jeremy Huntwork

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list