[Lustre-devel] Language choice for Lustre tests

[Jacques-Charles Lafoucriere <jacques-charles.lafoucriere@cea.fr>]

hello all

I personally always had difficulties with perl ...
the code is generally very hard to read, and the language brings very 
quickly to tricky optimization only experts understood
python is a more generic language, very easy to learn and if we make the 
right basic object definitions, it will help a lot for future 
improvement and code structure
at CEA our admin tools like shine or cluster-shell are python based and 
this choice allows us in getting scallable/reliable tools
For example, the initial version of shine (~6 years ago) was perl based 
and we were pleased to move to python for the new design

The target is lustre developers (ie kernel developers), it will be much 
easier for them to learn python than perl.
it will also be easier for them to get the right "python" way of 
programming than the right "perl" way of programming
(in both cases the worst way is to use the new language as bash, which 
can arrive much quickly with perl than with python)

about python, what do you mean by non standard installation ?
if your python configuration is right, the local differences should be 
hidden to the test framework

Bye

JC

On 10/23/2012 08:36 PM, Nathan Rutman wrote:
> At LAD'12 we proposed a plan for improving the Lustre test framework 
> as an important part of the Lustre quality story.  One of the 
> discussion points there was that the bash language of the current 
> tests was lacking in a variety of areas.  We're moving forward with 
> this work but need community agreement on the best course.
>
> Given the requirements and language options below, the reasonable 
> choices rapidly diminish to a showdown between perl and python.  I 
> think we're leaning at this point toward perl, based on it's superior 
> speed and inter-version compatibility.  The final piece of the puzzle 
> is the knowledge of existing Lustre test writers, so please chime in. 
>  (But note that "popularity" is the reason we chose bash the first 
> time, and look where that got us...)
>
> requirements
> 1. easy to use
> 2. strict structure
> 3. universally available
> 4. widely maintained
> 5. widely understood
> 6. good filesystem interface: posix API
> 7. fast - replace e.g. createmany with embedded function
> 8. operate remote instances
> 9. inter-version compatibility
> options
> bash - capable, but too flexible, easy to abuse
> perl - forward compatible, universal, more widely understood, xperior, 
> compact; hard to read later
> posix::open, opendir, lseek, etc.
> parallel::MPI
> ~2x faster than python
> more version compatible
> python - very clear structure, swig module for c inclusion; 
> non-standard installations, support
> os.open: all c flags
> MPI bindings
> tab/space requirements make remote editing more difficult
> cucumber - ruby based, difficult deployment
> java - easy deployment, dev environ, debugger, fast; must compile
> ruby - compact
>
>
> http://silicainsilico.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/switching-from-perl-to-python-speed/
> http://tenser.typepad.com/tenser_said_the_tensor/2006/08/python_vs_perl_.html
> http://opennomad.com/content/performance-different-scripting-languages-shell-v-perl-v-python-v-ruby
> http://hentenaar.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/27-Benchmark-PHP-vs.-Python-vs.-Perl-vs.-Ruby.html
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-devel mailing list
> Lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lustre.org/pipermail/lustre-devel-lustre.org/attachments/20121023/6616133b/attachment.htm>