Re: Announcing DNF 3 development

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 03/26/2018 02:30 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Martin Sehnoutka <msehnout@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/26/2018 01:38 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Matěj Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-03-26, 10:52 GMT, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>>>> On 03/22/2018 01:40 PM, Daniel Mach wrote:
>>>>>> Please read more details on our blog:
>>>>>> https://rpm-software-management.github.io/announcement/2018/03/22/dnf-3-announcement/
>>>>>
>>>>> “C++ 11 is supported by GCC in RHEL 7 / CentOS 7” — You should
>>>>> use Developer Toolset to compile on Red Hat Enterprise Linux
>>>>> 7 if you need C++11 support.  The system compiler, GCC 4.8,
>>>>> has limited support only.
>>>>
>>>> When switching the programming langauge than I would think there
>>>> are some better C-successors than C++, namely Rust? Mad rush of
>>>> giving up on 46 years old language and switching to one which is
>>>> just 33 years old seems a bit bizarre to me.
>>>>
>>
>> Take a look into the code, it is mostly C with few features from C++.
>>
>> btw what is the motivation to use GOBjects? Is the libdnf api supposed
>> to be consumed by dnf frontend via gi repository?
>>
> 
> It was a thought a while ago with libhif, and as part of the final
> rationalization for libdnf, it's being dropped. Because libdnf is
> going to be in C++, it's going to use SWIG for bindings generation.
> 

Thanks for clarification.

>>>
>>> I'm okay with not dealing with LLVM for my system package manager,
>>> thank you very much. I'd be more open to Rust if Rust also could be
>>> built with GCC, and thus supported across literally everything, but no
>>> one is investing in that effort.
>>>
>>
>> Well, investment like this will need some justification, not saying that
>> dnf should be the one, but you will definitely need a big, important
>> project.
>>
> 
> Considering all the other "big important things" people don't invest
> in anyway, I don't think that'd help any.
> 
>>> And frankly, Rust is harder to program in than C++, and creating
>>> bindings is no walk in the park.
>>>
>>
>> Purely personal opinion. You are probably referring to the learning
>> curve, which is known to be steep, but after this period it is well
>> worth the effort.
>>
> 
> Not my personal opinion. That's the opinion of several developers I
> know who are working on Rust based projects. Not everyone gets the
> benefit of GNOME forcing all the things so that stuff _must_ work.
> 

I don't really get the last sentence. What is GNOME forcing a what must
work?

>> Regarding the bindings, if libdnf is meant to be used via gir (see my
>> question above), then there is already an effort to make this much
>> easier (I'm referring to gnome-class).
>>
> 
> As I noted earlier in this email, gir is a leftover and is being removed.
> 

-- 
Martin Sehnoutka | Associate Software Engineer
PGP: 5FD64AF5
UTC+1 (CET)
RED HAT | TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux