From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hollis Blanchard Subject: Re: xend leaks/bugs/etc Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:34:36 -0500 Message-ID: <4266687C.1080209@us.ibm.com> References: <42660ABC.80404@diku.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <42660ABC.80404@diku.dk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jacob Gorm Hansen Cc: Ian Pratt , Harry Butterworth , xen-devel , Allen Short , ncmike@us.ibm.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Jacob Gorm Hansen wrote: > > Not if you factor in the footprint of the python compiler and runtime > and its large set of standard modules, and its unpredictable runtime > performance (memory leaks and lack of static checking). It seems to me > the 'python for xend' experiment has failed, and that this is further > evidenced by that fact that a) Anthony/IBM has decided to write a > competing implementation from scratch b) Xend developers blame Twisted, > and now c) Twisted developers blame Xend. Short of name-calling, I do > not see how we can proceed from here. Bad code or difficult-to-use code can be written in any language (or with any framework), statically typed or not, interpreted or not. There is no shortage of terrible tools written in C. :) -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center