Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 16:15:56 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <youshi10@u.washington.edu> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SoC Message-ID: <4650D6AC.4050405@u.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <464F4FD9.9020308@u.washington.edu> References: <20070513040651.GB1017@dwpc.dwlabs.ca> <4647F627.7020408@u.washington.edu> <20070514202922.GF1017@dwpc.dwlabs.ca> <4649426F.8050601@u.washington.edu> <1179214317.1791.38.camel@zoot.mintel.co.uk> <464969B3.3050306@u.washington.edu> <20070515213026.GI1017@dwpc.dwlabs.ca> <464D2195.3020309@u.washington.edu> <464F4FD9.9020308@u.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett Cooper wrote: > Garrett Cooper wrote: >> Duane Whitty wrote: >>> 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 applications. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> -Garrett >> > >>> 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! >>> >>> Duane >> >> Ok, finally dumped the full database. Will analyze closely later on >> tonight. >> >> Cheers, >> -Garrett >> >> PS If you installed ruby-bdb, simply running "make config" in the >> ports-mgmt/portupgrade directory and selecting ruby-bdb1 won't do. You >> have to go into databases/ruby-bdb, do make deinstall, then go to >> databases/ruby-bdb1 and do make install, or something similar. > > If you haven't seen my entry yet, and you're interested, I've posted > my analysis of the INDEX-*.db file at: > <http://blogs.freebsdish.org/gcooper/2007/05/19/behind-index-db>. > I'd like to really discuss the additional metadata that gets tacked > onto each database file, in particular, is it necessary, and is there a > better way to do that? > Also, the whole Ruby ports tools writing to the ports db > consistently instead of at exit is another item which probably should be > discussed too (someone brought this up earlier). > Thanks, > -Garrett Posted more results here: <http://blogs.freebsdish.org/gcooper/2007/05/20/the-inefficiencies-of-pkgdbdb/>. Needless to say, I'm not happy with Portupgrade. -Garret
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4650D6AC.4050405>