Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #83394 > unrolled thread

A love of languages

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  A love of languages Jack Lemmon <invalid@invalid.net> - 2022-03-27 17:00 +0100
    Re: A love of languages Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-03-27 18:24 +0200
    Re: A love of languages Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-03-28 23:08 +0000
      Re: A love of languages Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-03-30 21:53 +0100
        Re: A love of languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-03-31 10:29 +0200
        Re: A love of languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-03-31 08:29 +0000
          Re: A love of languages Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-04 06:00 +0000
            Re: A love of languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-04 08:28 +0000
              Re: A love of languages Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2022-04-05 21:10 +0100
                Re: A love of languages red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-04-05 13:28 -0700
                Re: A love of languages om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) - 2022-04-11 13:24 -0400
                Re: A love of languages om@iki.fi (Otto J. Makela) - 2022-04-11 19:13 -0400
          Re: A love of languages legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2022-04-06 22:18 +0000
            Re: A love of languages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-04-06 16:16 -0700
            Re: A love of languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-07 09:02 +0000
            Re: A love of languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-07 11:24 +0200
              Re: A love of languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-07 09:42 +0000
                Re: A love of languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-07 12:02 +0200
                Re: A love of languages Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2022-04-07 21:54 +0200
                  Re: A love of languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-08 10:49 +0000
                  Re: A love of languages Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-04-08 12:16 +0000
                    Re: A love of languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-08 15:08 +0200
                      Re: A love of languages Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-04-08 15:31 +0100
                        Re: A love of languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-08 18:15 +0200
                          Re: A love of languages Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-04-08 19:14 +0100
                      Re: A love of languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-08 14:53 +0000
                        Re: A love of languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-04-08 18:18 +0200
                          Re: A love of languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-08 17:47 +0000
                          Re: A love of languages Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-04-09 09:13 +0000
                  Re: A love of languages scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-04-08 14:51 +0000
                  Re: A love of languages Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2022-04-11 08:28 +0000
                Re: A love of languages legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2022-04-07 20:54 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#83394 — A love of languages

"Some developers are content with the languages they use for work. 
Others experiment with other languages, and others still might make 
their own languages. All of these are fine! But I find myself in the 
second category. This is exploration of why I personally find languages 
so interesting — and further, why I have involved myself with language 
development."

<https://derw.substack.com/p/a-love-of-languages?s=r>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#83395

Am 27.03.2022 um 18:00 schrieb Jack Lemmon:
> "Some developers are content with the languages they use for work.
> Others experiment with other languages, and others still might make
> their own languages. All of these are fine! But I find myself in the
> second category. This is exploration of why I personally find languages
> so interesting — and further, why I have involved myself with language
> development."
> <https://derw.substack.com/p/a-love-of-languages?s=r>

A developer who doesn't understand generic programming or
OOP is a developer who should beam himself back into the 80s.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83398

In comp.lang.c++ Jack Lemmon <invalid@invalid.net> wrote:
> "Some developers are content with the languages they use for work. 
> Others experiment with other languages, and others still might make 
> their own languages. All of these are fine! But I find myself in the 
> second category. This is exploration of why I personally find languages 
> so interesting ? and further, why I have involved myself with language 
> development."
> 
> <https://derw.substack.com/p/a-love-of-languages?s=r>

From a career point of view it's an interesting question whether it's
better that you are a top expert on two programming languages (that
are useful in your field of work), or having moderate knowledge of
twenty languages.

For example, if you are a frontend web developer, it's quite
unlikely you would ever need a deep knowledge of C or C++
(or any knowledge at all for that matter). Likewise if you are an
embedded developer it's unlikely you'll ever need any knowledge
of Javascript or Haxe.

Perhaps the only language that's truly universal (in the sense that it's
shoved absolutely *everywhere*, be it a good choice or not) is Python.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83403

On 29/03/2022 00:08, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>  From a career point of view it's an interesting question whether it's
> better that you are a top expert on two programming languages (that
> are useful in your field of work), or having moderate knowledge of
> twenty languages.
> 
> For example, if you are a frontend web developer, it's quite
> unlikely you would ever need a deep knowledge of C or C++
> (or any knowledge at all for that matter). Likewise if you are an
> embedded developer it's unlikely you'll ever need any knowledge
> of Javascript or Haxe.
> 
> Perhaps the only language that's truly universal (in the sense that it's
> shoved absolutely*everywhere*, be it a good choice or not) is Python.

I'm embedded these days, and I mostly use C and C++. I've written 
Assembler on I don't-know-how-many architectures (I'm read-only on 
ARM!(. Pascal would probably come back in minutes, and I don't think 
Fortran would take a lot longer. If you asked me to refresh my APL I'd 
just refuse... there are others. Does Make count?

But I've never learned Python. Perhaps I should.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83404

On 30/03/2022 22:53, Vir Campestris wrote:
> On 29/03/2022 00:08, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>  From a career point of view it's an interesting question whether it's
>> better that you are a top expert on two programming languages (that
>> are useful in your field of work), or having moderate knowledge of
>> twenty languages.
>>
>> For example, if you are a frontend web developer, it's quite
>> unlikely you would ever need a deep knowledge of C or C++
>> (or any knowledge at all for that matter). Likewise if you are an
>> embedded developer it's unlikely you'll ever need any knowledge
>> of Javascript or Haxe.
>>
>> Perhaps the only language that's truly universal (in the sense that it's
>> shoved absolutely*everywhere*, be it a good choice or not) is Python.
> 
> I'm embedded these days, and I mostly use C and C++. I've written
> Assembler on I don't-know-how-many architectures (I'm read-only on
> ARM!(. Pascal would probably come back in minutes, and I don't think
> Fortran would take a lot longer. If you asked me to refresh my APL I'd
> just refuse... there are others. Does Make count?
> 
> But I've never learned Python. Perhaps I should.
> 

Python is a useful language to learn.  I find that I use it for most of
my PC and server programming.  It has its disadvantages compared to C++
- the dynamic features of the language mean you don't get the kind of
compile-time checks that you have in a static language, and of course it
is slower if you are doing heavy processor work.  But it is /vastly/
simpler to work with for string processing, anything involving
networking, databases, etc.  Your source code is usually a fraction of
the size - it has a very different "programmer efficiency" vs. "run-time
efficiency" balance than C++.  For small and simple programs and
scripts, it is extremely handy - I have little Python programs that run
on PC's, servers, Raspberry Pi's, etc.  Many of my embedded C and C++
projects have Python scripts in their make process for generating update
files with CRC checks and other data, or for pre-processing data files
(images, web pages, etc.) into data arrays to link into the program.

There is plenty not to like about Python - Python 2 and Python 3
incompatibilities can be a pain, and mixups between tabs and spaces can
drive you crazy.  But I've yet to find the "perfect" programming
language for all purposes.  Python does not at all replace C or C++, but
it is a useful complement (in my experience).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83405

On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 21:53:39 +0100
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 29/03/2022 00:08, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>  From a career point of view it's an interesting question whether it's
>> better that you are a top expert on two programming languages (that
>> are useful in your field of work), or having moderate knowledge of
>> twenty languages.
>> 
>> For example, if you are a frontend web developer, it's quite
>> unlikely you would ever need a deep knowledge of C or C++
>> (or any knowledge at all for that matter). Likewise if you are an
>> embedded developer it's unlikely you'll ever need any knowledge
>> of Javascript or Haxe.
>> 
>> Perhaps the only language that's truly universal (in the sense that it's
>> shoved absolutely*everywhere*, be it a good choice or not) is Python.
>
>I'm embedded these days, and I mostly use C and C++. I've written 
>Assembler on I don't-know-how-many architectures (I'm read-only on 
>ARM!(. Pascal would probably come back in minutes, and I don't think 
>Fortran would take a lot longer. If you asked me to refresh my APL I'd 
>just refuse... there are others. Does Make count?
>
>But I've never learned Python. Perhaps I should.

If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table. 

Annoyingly all the AI libraries seem to use Python as their API language 
and either a C/C++ API isn't supported or the documentation is non existent
despite the core AI code being written in C/C++. Go figure.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83446

In comp.lang.c++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>But I've never learned Python. Perhaps I should.
> 
> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table. 

The thing is that even you don't write Python it's likely you'll encounter
it in one form of another. Sometimes even in the form of having to understand
what a Python program is doing, or even change/fix it.

This is because, as mentioned, Python is shoved *everywhere* (regardless of
whather it's a good choice or not).

I wouldn't be surprised if Python is at this moment running on the surface
of Mars, and near the Lagrange-2 point.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83452

On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 06:00:19 -0000 (UTC)
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>In comp.lang.c++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>But I've never learned Python. Perhaps I should.
>> 
>> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table. 
>
>The thing is that even you don't write Python it's likely you'll encounter
>it in one form of another. Sometimes even in the form of having to understand
>what a Python program is doing, or even change/fix it.
>
>This is because, as mentioned, Python is shoved *everywhere* (regardless of
>whather it's a good choice or not).
>
>I wouldn't be surprised if Python is at this moment running on the surface
>of Mars, and near the Lagrange-2 point.

I don't think its used in the spacecraft but I can tell you (no, I can't tell 
you how I know) that Python *is* used in the ground systems for certain space
missions in certain areas.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83492

On 04/04/2022 09:28, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 06:00:19 -0000 (UTC)
> Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
>> In comp.lang.c++ Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> But I've never learned Python. Perhaps I should.
>>>
>>> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>>> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>>> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
>>
>> The thing is that even you don't write Python it's likely you'll encounter
>> it in one form of another. Sometimes even in the form of having to understand
>> what a Python program is doing, or even change/fix it.
>>
>> This is because, as mentioned, Python is shoved *everywhere* (regardless of
>> whather it's a good choice or not).
>>
>> I wouldn't be surprised if Python is at this moment running on the surface
>> of Mars, and near the Lagrange-2 point.
> 
> I don't think its used in the spacecraft but I can tell you (no, I can't tell
> you how I know) that Python *is* used in the ground systems for certain space
> missions in certain areas.
> 
"To get a job" ... that's one thing I _won't_ need it for. I'm retiring 
at the end of the month.

You mentioned space. I know _exactly_ where I was on 15th July 1969.

Andy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83493

On 4/5/2022 1:10 PM, Vir Campestris wrote:

> You mentioned space. I know _exactly_ where I was on 15th July 1969.

As do I.  I was waiting for the Apollo 11 launch on the 16th.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83566

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> You mentioned space. I know _exactly_ where I was on 15th July 1969.

Actually so do I. It was one of my earliest memories,
my dad woke me up to watch TV at the middle of the night.

Followup-to: sci.space.tech
-- 
   /* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
 /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27,  FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83571

Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> You mentioned space. I know _exactly_ where I was on 15th July 1969.

Actually I remember 20th July. It was one of my earliest memories,
my dad woke me up to watch the moon landing from TV late at night.

Followup-to: sci.space.tech
-- 
   /* * * Otto J. Makela <om@iki.fi> * * * * * * * * * */
  /* Phone: +358 40 765 5772, ICBM: N 60 10' E 24 55' */
 /* Mail: Mechelininkatu 26 B 27,  FI-00100 Helsinki */
/* * * Computers Rule 01001111 01001011 * * * * * * */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83511

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
<t23oq5$1jau$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:

>If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table. 

The point about python isn't the language, it's the ecosystem of
packages.

Same for nodejs, perl, TeX, ruby, etc.  All those languages continue to
thrive and be useful for their niche because the ecosystem of packages
and the ease by which you can consume them makes it easy to get stuff
done.

vcpkg is making a difference for C++ though.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpBDHh47w-I>

...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
package managers for C++ that are written in python.  Adding a
dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
            The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83513

On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 01:19:20 UTC+3, Richard wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] 
> 
> Mut...@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code 
> <t23oq5$1jau$1...@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:
> >If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's 
> >little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO 
> >kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
> The point about python isn't the language, it's the ecosystem of 
> packages. 
> 
> Same for nodejs, perl, TeX, ruby, etc. All those languages continue to 
> thrive and be useful for their niche because the ecosystem of packages 
> and the ease by which you can consume them makes it easy to get stuff 
> done. 
> 
> vcpkg is making a difference for C++ though. 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpBDHh47w-I> 
> 
> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these 
> package managers for C++ that are written in python. Adding a 
> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1. 

Intriguing sentence ... vcpkg repo was littered full of .py, .sh, .ps1 
etc scripts last I checked. Also it IIRC had some outright executable
binaries in it. That is life. Either we  maintain all those scripts in all
those languages ... or we get nothing done.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83519

On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 22:18:57 -0000 (UTC)
legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) wrote:
>[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
><t23oq5$1jau$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:
>
>>If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>>little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>>kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table. 
>
>The point about python isn't the language, it's the ecosystem of
>packages.
>
>Same for nodejs, perl, TeX, ruby, etc.  All those languages continue to
>thrive and be useful for their niche because the ecosystem of packages
>and the ease by which you can consume them makes it easy to get stuff
>done.

You could use the same argument for Java. Poor language but lots of libraries.
Cross platform runtime support doesn't matter nearly as much now as it did in 
the 90s when Java came out due to VMs and the cloud.

>....and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
>package managers for C++ that are written in python.  Adding a
>dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.

Agreed.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83520

On 07/04/2022 00:18, Richard wrote:
> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
> 
> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
> <t23oq5$1jau$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:
> 
>> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
> 
> The point about python isn't the language, it's the ecosystem of
> packages.
> 
> Same for nodejs, perl, TeX, ruby, etc.  All those languages continue to
> thrive and be useful for their niche because the ecosystem of packages
> and the ease by which you can consume them makes it easy to get stuff
> done.
> 
> vcpkg is making a difference for C++ though.
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpBDHh47w-I>
> 
> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
> package managers for C++ that are written in python.  Adding a
> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.

Why would you say that?  Pick the right language for the task in hand. 
Python is a better language for a package manager than C++ - it has far 
more of the useful components already in its library (internet 
protocols, zip/tar/bzip2, that kind of thing), and lets you make a 
package manager in a small fraction of the number of lines of code you'd 
need in C++.  There are no advantages in using C++ here - you don't need 
the speed (code speed is not the bottleneck), you don't care about 
memory efficiency or disk space.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83521

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:24:36 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 07/04/2022 00:18, Richard wrote:
>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>> 
>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
>> <t23oq5$1jau$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:
>> 
>>> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>>> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>>> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
>> 
>> The point about python isn't the language, it's the ecosystem of
>> packages.
>> 
>> Same for nodejs, perl, TeX, ruby, etc.  All those languages continue to
>> thrive and be useful for their niche because the ecosystem of packages
>> and the ease by which you can consume them makes it easy to get stuff
>> done.
>> 
>> vcpkg is making a difference for C++ though.
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpBDHh47w-I>
>> 
>> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
>> package managers for C++ that are written in python.  Adding a
>> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.
>
>Why would you say that?  Pick the right language for the task in hand. 
>Python is a better language for a package manager than C++ - it has far 
>more of the useful components already in its library (internet 
>protocols, zip/tar/bzip2, that kind of thing), and lets you make a 
>package manager in a small fraction of the number of lines of code you'd 
>need in C++.  There are no advantages in using C++ here - you don't need 
>the speed (code speed is not the bottleneck), you don't care about 
>memory efficiency or disk space.

Using bash would be even better. Its installed by default on every version
of *nix that matters.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83522

On 07/04/2022 11:42, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:24:36 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 07/04/2022 00:18, Richard wrote:
>>> [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]
>>>
>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
>>> <t23oq5$1jau$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:
>>>
>>>> If you think you might need it to get a job then do it, otherwise there's
>>>> little point. Its just another procedural scripting language with an OO
>>>> kludge nailed on top and doesn't bring anything new to the table.
>>>
>>> The point about python isn't the language, it's the ecosystem of
>>> packages.
>>>
>>> Same for nodejs, perl, TeX, ruby, etc.  All those languages continue to
>>> thrive and be useful for their niche because the ecosystem of packages
>>> and the ease by which you can consume them makes it easy to get stuff
>>> done.
>>>
>>> vcpkg is making a difference for C++ though.
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpBDHh47w-I>
>>>
>>> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
>>> package managers for C++ that are written in python.  Adding a
>>> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.
>>
>> Why would you say that?  Pick the right language for the task in hand.
>> Python is a better language for a package manager than C++ - it has far
>> more of the useful components already in its library (internet
>> protocols, zip/tar/bzip2, that kind of thing), and lets you make a
>> package manager in a small fraction of the number of lines of code you'd
>> need in C++.  There are no advantages in using C++ here - you don't need
>> the speed (code speed is not the bottleneck), you don't care about
>> memory efficiency or disk space.
> 
> Using bash would be even better. Its installed by default on every version
> of *nix that matters.
> 

It is not uncommon for things like a package manager to use other common 
utilities - including shells.  But bash alone is not a language you'd 
use for a task like this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83524

Am 07.04.22 um 11:42 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:24:36 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 07/04/2022 00:18, Richard wrote:
>>> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
>>> package managers for C++ that are written in python.  Adding a
>>> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.
>>
>> Why would you say that?  Pick the right language for the task in hand.
>> Python is a better language for a package manager than C++ - it has far
>> more of the useful components already in its library (internet
>> protocols, zip/tar/bzip2, that kind of thing), and lets you make a
>> package manager in a small fraction of the number of lines of code you'd
>> need in C++.  There are no advantages in using C++ here - you don't need
>> the speed (code speed is not the bottleneck), you don't care about
>> memory efficiency or disk space.
> 
> Using bash would be even better. Its installed by default on every version
> of *nix that matters.
> 

Bash is a terrible language, if you plan to write larger programs in it. 
Yes, it is possible, but the quoting rules (automatic expansion unless 
you carefully quote everything) will lead to many data-dependent bugs, 
like surprise with whitespace in paths and so on. Remember Shellshock?

Additionally, it's hard to get Bash working on Windows. Bash is rather 
useless without a bunch of other tools like awk, sed, cp, mv, find, ...

It is way easier to get a working Python installation.

	Christian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#83526

On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 21:54:27 +0200
Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
>Am 07.04.22 um 11:42 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 11:24:36 +0200
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>> On 07/04/2022 00:18, Richard wrote:
>>>> ...and speaking of package managers and python, I really dislike these
>>>> package managers for C++ that are written in python.  Adding a
>>>> dependency on another language is a fail from step 1.
>>>
>>> Why would you say that?  Pick the right language for the task in hand.
>>> Python is a better language for a package manager than C++ - it has far
>>> more of the useful components already in its library (internet
>>> protocols, zip/tar/bzip2, that kind of thing), and lets you make a
>>> package manager in a small fraction of the number of lines of code you'd
>>> need in C++.  There are no advantages in using C++ here - you don't need
>>> the speed (code speed is not the bottleneck), you don't care about
>>> memory efficiency or disk space.
>> 
>> Using bash would be even better. Its installed by default on every version
>> of *nix that matters.
>> 
>
>Bash is a terrible language, if you plan to write larger programs in it. 
>Yes, it is possible, but the quoting rules (automatic expansion unless 
>you carefully quote everything) will lead to many data-dependent bugs, 
>like surprise with whitespace in paths and so on. Remember Shellshock?
>
>Additionally, it's hard to get Bash working on Windows. Bash is rather 

Windows installers are completely seperate to linux and mac installers so
thats irrelevant.

>useless without a bunch of other tools like awk, sed, cp, mv, find, ...

Well obviously bash is just glue logic. But the point is its always available
unlike Python or even worse Java (does Oracle still require java to install
its software?)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web