On Mon, 31 May 1999, Dancer wrote:
> I wouldn't think of it as 'constantly', but I take your point. I see it
> as a benefit largely for the assorted binary distributions. You know how
> many folks out there get it as an RPM and don't have a clue what options
> it was compiled with or how to go about compiling a copy of their own.
Hmm.. Indeed. I do not know of any simple and portable solution in case of
distributed binaries/RPMs. If the usage of RPMs is encouraged, then your
approach is perhaps better, albeit far more complex.
> Q: Are we stuck with it [C] by policy, or just because of size and
> complexity?
Primarily due to faith reasons (i.e., belief in something for which there
can be no proof), I guess. The amount of work required for an upgrade is
also an issue, of course. I'd stopped arguing for C++ migration long time
ago, but reserve the right to bug people about deficiencies of C. :)
Alex.
Received on Tue Jul 29 2003 - 13:15:58 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:12:08 MST