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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#83527

In comp.lang.c++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
> 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.

Is Python any easier?

It's not like you can just run "apt install python" in Windows.

(Of course in modern Windows there's WSL which ought to make it much easier
to use Python, bash, or almost any other (non-graphical) unix tool you want.)

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

#83530

On 08/04/2022 14:16, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> In comp.lang.c++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Is Python any easier?
> 
> It's not like you can just run "apt install python" in Windows.
> 

Installing Python on Windows is simple - using the standard Windows 
installation method.  Go to "www.python.org", click "Downloads", click 
"Windows", and download and install it.  (Or perhaps skip a click or two 
by just googling "install python" on a Windows machine.)

If you want to do more complicated Python work on Windows, and have 
multiple versions installed, it can get a little more complicated.  But 
for simple "install the latest Python", it's easy.

But anyone making a Python program that they want to make easy for 
Windows can also use "py2exe" (or a similar system - there are a few to 
choose from) that combines your Python code along with the Python 
runtime, interpreter and required libraries, into a single exe file.  It 
can be quite big - you probably have a minimum size of about 8 or 10 MB, 
but that's rarely a problem.  The user gets the convenience of 
installing it and running it as a stand-alone program with no extra 
dependencies, while the developer gets the convenience of writing in 
Python with all its high-level libraries.


The great majority of general-purpose Linux systems already have Python 
installed by default - so the usual Linux installation method is to do 
nothing.  (The only relatively modern Linux systems I have seen that 
don't have Python don't have bash either - they have busybox for their 
shell.)

Installing bash, awk, sed, and friends on Windows is not rocket science 
either, but you need to know more - generally, the best way IMHO (other 
than WSL or similar) is to install msys2.  And you can get Python with 
that too :-)  (To get vaguely back to the newsgroups' topic, msys2 is 
also a good way to get gcc, g++, make, binutils, and such programs for 
use on Windows.)



> (Of course in modern Windows there's WSL which ought to make it much easier
> to use Python, bash, or almost any other (non-graphical) unix tool you want.)

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

#83531

On 08/04/2022 14:08, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/04/2022 14:16, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> In comp.lang.c++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Is Python any easier?
>>
>> It's not like you can just run "apt install python" in Windows.
>>
> 
> Installing Python on Windows is simple - using the standard Windows 
> installation method.  Go to "www.python.org", click "Downloads", click 
> "Windows", and download and install it.  (Or perhaps skip a click or two 
> by just googling "install python" on a Windows machine.)
> 
> If you want to do more complicated Python work on Windows, and have 
> multiple versions installed, it can get a little more complicated.  But 
> for simple "install the latest Python", it's easy.
> 
> But anyone making a Python program that they want to make easy for 
> Windows can also use "py2exe" (or a similar system - there are a few to 
> choose from) that combines your Python code along with the Python 
> runtime, interpreter and required libraries, into a single exe file.  It 
> can be quite big - you probably have a minimum size of about 8 or 10 MB, 
> but that's rarely a problem.

I've downloaded one of those before; even for a simple program, there 
was an annoying start-up delay when I tried to run it.

Maybe it'll be different on my new machine, so I went to the py2exe 
site; there are ready-built distributions, but they are all .whl files 
that Windows knows nothing about. (Remember this is a program for 
Windows that runs on Windows.)

Apparently .whl can just be renamed to .zip (so what was the point)? I 
didn't get much further however, as it is still a complex application 
consisting of .exe files (no PY2EXE.EXE alas!), .dlls and various .py 
scripts.

It is not as simple as just doing 'py2exe prog.py' instead of 'python 
prog.py', and ending up with prog.exe.

> The user gets the convenience of 
> installing it and running it as a stand-alone program with no extra 
> dependencies, while the developer gets the convenience of writing in 
> Python with all its high-level libraries.
> 
> 
> The great majority of general-purpose Linux systems already have Python 
> installed by default - so the usual Linux installation method is to do 
> nothing.  (The only relatively modern Linux systems I have seen that 
> don't have Python don't have bash either - they have busybox for their 
> shell.)
> 
> Installing bash, awk, sed, and friends on Windows is not rocket science 
> either, but you need to know more - generally, the best way IMHO (other 
> than WSL or similar) is to install msys2.  And you can get Python with 
> that too :-)  (To get vaguely back to the newsgroups' topic, msys2 is 
> also a good way to get gcc, g++, make, binutils, and such programs for 
> use on Windows.)

It all sounds so simple!

Remember this was about writing and sharing simple scripts. Sharing a 
such a script on Windows, which remember is used by 'lay' people, should 
not involve first installing MSYS2, and or even running WSL (which even 
on my machine, first involves disabling compatility mode on all consoles).

Maybe there are other scripting languages which are just a .EXE file and 
the script file (Lua is a bit like that).

Then you just provide those two files, unless the script involves 
multiple files. However it is now simple enough that people can devise 
their own means of packaging them more tidily (into one EXE or one ZIP), 
rather than deal with the 1000s of files and 100s of directories of a 
sprawling language installation.

My own script language will always be 2 files: EXE and monolithic 
program (the latter generated with the interpreter using a -qa option), 
which can be further combined into one EXE if needed. But I make the 
extra effort. (However I don't have Python's 1000s of libraries.)

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

#83534

On 08/04/2022 16:31, Bart wrote:
> On 08/04/2022 14:08, David Brown wrote:
>> On 08/04/2022 14:16, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>> In comp.lang.c++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Is Python any easier?
>>>
>>> It's not like you can just run "apt install python" in Windows.
>>>
>>
>> Installing Python on Windows is simple - using the standard Windows 
>> installation method.  Go to "www.python.org", click "Downloads", click 
>> "Windows", and download and install it.  (Or perhaps skip a click or 
>> two by just googling "install python" on a Windows machine.)
>>
>> If you want to do more complicated Python work on Windows, and have 
>> multiple versions installed, it can get a little more complicated.  
>> But for simple "install the latest Python", it's easy.
>>
>> But anyone making a Python program that they want to make easy for 
>> Windows can also use "py2exe" (or a similar system - there are a few 
>> to choose from) that combines your Python code along with the Python 
>> runtime, interpreter and required libraries, into a single exe file.  
>> It can be quite big - you probably have a minimum size of about 8 or 
>> 10 MB, but that's rarely a problem.
> 
> I've downloaded one of those before; even for a simple program, there 
> was an annoying start-up delay when I tried to run it.
> 

You don't use Python when you are looking for top speed.  A py2exe 
package is a bit like these "portable" versions of Windows applications 
that you get for running from USB sticks - it contains a whole lot of 
files and libraries, packed into a self-extracting zip file.  Of course 
it takes time to start.

> Maybe it'll be different on my new machine, so I went to the py2exe 
> site; there are ready-built distributions, but they are all .whl files 
> that Windows knows nothing about. (Remember this is a program for 
> Windows that runs on Windows.)

Did you bother to read the "installation" part on the py2exe PyPI page? 
  This is not the newsgroup for discussing Python, much less for 
hand-holding people through the installation of programs they know 
nothing about.

Suffice it to say that anyone who is familiar enough with Python to be 
able to write a package manager in it, will have no problem making a 
stand-alone Windows executable and/or installer for Windows users who 
don't want to install Python separately.  Let's leave it at that - if 
you want to know more, google for it or go to a Python group.

(And if you want to advertise your own scripting language yet again, 
please do that somewhere else too.  Maybe you can find a different forum 
where people would be interested in using it - surely that would be a 
good thing for you?)

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

#83540

On 08/04/2022 17:15, David Brown wrote:
> On 08/04/2022 16:31, Bart wrote:
>> On 08/04/2022 14:08, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 08/04/2022 14:16, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>>> In comp.lang.c++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Is Python any easier?
>>>>
>>>> It's not like you can just run "apt install python" in Windows.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Installing Python on Windows is simple - using the standard Windows 
>>> installation method.  Go to "www.python.org", click "Downloads", 
>>> click "Windows", and download and install it.  (Or perhaps skip a 
>>> click or two by just googling "install python" on a Windows machine.)
>>>
>>> If you want to do more complicated Python work on Windows, and have 
>>> multiple versions installed, it can get a little more complicated. 
>>> But for simple "install the latest Python", it's easy.
>>>
>>> But anyone making a Python program that they want to make easy for 
>>> Windows can also use "py2exe" (or a similar system - there are a few 
>>> to choose from) that combines your Python code along with the Python 
>>> runtime, interpreter and required libraries, into a single exe file. 
>>> It can be quite big - you probably have a minimum size of about 8 or 
>>> 10 MB, but that's rarely a problem.
>>
>> I've downloaded one of those before; even for a simple program, there 
>> was an annoying start-up delay when I tried to run it.
>>
> 
> You don't use Python when you are looking for top speed.

This is start-up speed not execution speed.

One huge advantage of running scripting code from source is that there 
is little or no compile or link time; it's instant. Or it should be.

I think it was something like a half-second delay; you can imagine that 
if invoked dozens of times in succession to perform some trivial asks, 
it adds up.

>  A py2exe 
> package is a bit like these "portable" versions of Windows applications 
> that you get for running from USB sticks - it contains a whole lot of 
> files and libraries, packed into a self-extracting zip file.  Of course 
> it takes time to start.

Does it do that? In that case it's an installer, not a standalone EXE 
that you run directly as though it was a regular application built with 
a compiler.

>> Maybe it'll be different on my new machine, so I went to the py2exe 
>> site; there are ready-built distributions, but they are all .whl files 
>> that Windows knows nothing about. (Remember this is a program for 
>> Windows that runs on Windows.)
> 
> Did you bother to read the "installation" part on the py2exe PyPI page? 

I have now. I was already lost by step 2 (of 5). (Step 6 states that 
py2exe is not an installer builder.)

So you can't just do 'py2exe prog.py' as I said.

>   This is not the newsgroup for discussing Python, much less for 
> hand-holding people through the installation of programs they know 
> nothing about.
> 
> Suffice it to say that anyone who is familiar enough with Python to be 
> able to write a package manager in it, will have no problem making a 
> stand-alone Windows executable and/or installer for Windows users who 
> don't want to install Python separately.  Let's leave it at that - if 
> you want to know more, google for it or go to a Python group.
> 
> (And if you want to advertise your own scripting language yet again, 
> please do that somewhere else too.

Do you see me posting any links to it?

It is FACT that, if you have an interpreted language, then you all you 
should require to run any program is the interpreter, and the program, 
ideally in no more than two files.

If /I/ can do that and with no fuss, then anyone ought to be able to. 
(Actually I could do this on both Windows and Linux at one point.)

Of course such arguments are never going to cut any ice with people who 
work in Unix-like environments who create programs for people also 
working with Unix environments. They have no problem with dozens of 
sprawing, disseminated dependencies.

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

#83533

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>On 08/04/2022 14:16, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>> In comp.lang.c++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Is Python any easier?
>> 

>The great majority of general-purpose Linux systems already have Python 
>installed by default - so the usual Linux installation method is to do 
>nothing.  (The only relatively modern Linux systems I have seen that 
>don't have Python don't have bash either - they have busybox for their 
>shell.)

While true, current distros include python3 by default and have
deprecated python2.  A problem since python3 won't run python2
code.

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

#83535

On 08/04/2022 16:53, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 08/04/2022 14:16, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>> In comp.lang.c++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Is Python any easier?
>>>
> 
>> The great majority of general-purpose Linux systems already have Python
>> installed by default - so the usual Linux installation method is to do
>> nothing.  (The only relatively modern Linux systems I have seen that
>> don't have Python don't have bash either - they have busybox for their
>> shell.)
> 
> While true, current distros include python3 by default and have
> deprecated python2.  A problem since python3 won't run python2
> code.
> 

It is usually entirely possible to write code that is compatible with 
Python 2 and Python 3.  It can be an inconvenience, but it's typically 
not bad if you decide to do that from the start.  (Alternatively, you 
could just write your code for Python 3.)

The Python folks have not had the same dedication to backwards 
compatibility as the C and C++ language committees - there are pros and 
cons of all languages.

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

#83538

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>On 08/04/2022 16:53, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>> On 08/04/2022 14:16, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>>> In comp.lang.c++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Is Python any easier?
>>>>
>> 
>>> The great majority of general-purpose Linux systems already have Python
>>> installed by default - so the usual Linux installation method is to do
>>> nothing.  (The only relatively modern Linux systems I have seen that
>>> don't have Python don't have bash either - they have busybox for their
>>> shell.)
>> 
>> While true, current distros include python3 by default and have
>> deprecated python2.  A problem since python3 won't run python2
>> code.
>> 
>
>It is usually entirely possible to write code that is compatible with 
>Python 2 and Python 3.  It can be an inconvenience, but it's typically 
>not bad if you decide to do that from the start.  (Alternatively, you 
>could just write your code for Python 3.)

There were millions of python2 programs written before python3
even was a gleam in whomever's eye.

Yes, there is p2p3 package to help when converting p2 to p3,
but that's still work that needs to be paid for and takes
effort away from more important work.

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

#83544

On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 18:18:24 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 08/04/2022 16:53, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>>> On 08/04/2022 14:16, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>>>> In comp.lang.c++ Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Is Python any easier?
>>>>
>> 
>>> The great majority of general-purpose Linux systems already have Python
>>> installed by default - so the usual Linux installation method is to do
>>> nothing.  (The only relatively modern Linux systems I have seen that
>>> don't have Python don't have bash either - they have busybox for their
>>> shell.)
>> 
>> While true, current distros include python3 by default and have
>> deprecated python2.  A problem since python3 won't run python2
>> code.
>> 
>
>It is usually entirely possible to write code that is compatible with 
>Python 2 and Python 3.  It can be an inconvenience, but it's typically 
>not bad if you decide to do that from the start.  (Alternatively, you 
>could just write your code for Python 3.)
>
>The Python folks have not had the same dedication to backwards 

It wouldn't need dedication. Just leave the old syntax in.

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

#83532

Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> writes:
>Am 07.04.22 um 11:42 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:

>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.

While I detest windows, it is quite easy to get a working bash
on windows.  Just install WSL.

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

#83565

On Thu, 2022-04-07, Christian Gollwitzer 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. 

It's a special-purpose language.  It's great when your problem can be
solved by fitting other programs into pipelines; it's unsuitable when
the script itself has to do much, such as operating on complex data
structures.

Although I guess there is a connection between the language being
unsuited to the task, and the program becoming large.

/Jorgen

-- 
  // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@  Oo  o.   .     .
\X/     snipabacken.se>   O  o   .

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

#83525

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

Muttley@dastardlyhq.com spake the secret code
<t2mbmf$bvv$1@gioia.aioe.org> thusly:

>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.

You forgot </sarcasm>
-- 
"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] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web