From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make "git reset" a builtin. (incomplete)
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:58:48 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0708221252040.30176@woody.linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <86absjcqfq.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz>
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Actually, the same holds for assembly language vs C. Once the
> prototyping is over...
No. Portability.
The point is, C is *more* portable (and thus maintainable) than shell, but
assembly language is *less* portable than C.
So no, "the same holds" is not at all true.
It's not about whether something is evolving or not: it's about whether
something is *maintainable* or not.
And C is most definitely maintainable, in ways that scripting languages
often are *not*.
> > Having tried to do internal scripting languages, I can say that it's
> > just easier to do it in C once you get past the hump of getting it
> > written in C in the first place.
>
> But it is not "once" that you need to do this. It is a permanent job.
Sure, and that's exactly where C shines.
C is not great for "quick and dirty, and I'm not sure where this is
going".
But once you know where it's going, and once it's not "quick and dirty"
any more, very little beats C. It's easy to extend on, and if all the
infrastructure is in C, there simply IS NO BETTER WAY TO GLUE THINGS
TOGETHER.
There are "C bindings" for other languages (like LUA), but the fact is,
none of them hold a candle to the "C bindings" of native C.
So you're seemingly ignoring the fact that all the infrastructure is in C
(and absolutely _needs_ to be in C - there are no valid alternative
languages at that level).
> Maintenance: yes. Development: no. If you want a product you do not
> want to touch again, C is a good final choice.
That's simply not true.
Look around. Most C language projects are really well maintained.
In contrast, a lot of _scripting_ languages are basically write-only. They
may be write-only because that's their fundamental design (perl), or they
may be write-only because they are limited enough that you can not easily
extend them to do new things.
But your statement is provably wrong. Just *look* at well-maintained
projects that have extended way past their original design and usage
model. A lot of them are in C.
So why do you make these idiotic arguments that are clearly crap?
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-08-22 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-08-22 12:48 [PATCH] Make "git reset" a builtin. (incomplete) Carlos Rica
2007-08-22 13:00 ` David Kastrup
2007-08-22 13:37 ` Andreas Ericsson
2007-08-22 14:29 ` David Kastrup
2007-08-22 14:49 ` Mike Hommey
2007-08-22 15:02 ` Chris Shoemaker
2007-08-22 15:41 ` David Kastrup
2007-08-22 16:07 ` Nicolas Pitre
2007-08-22 16:51 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-08-22 17:17 ` David Kastrup
2007-08-22 19:05 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-08-22 19:36 ` David Kastrup
2007-08-22 19:58 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2007-08-22 22:25 ` David Kastrup
2007-08-22 23:10 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-08-22 23:39 ` David Kastrup
2007-08-23 1:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-08-23 0:24 ` Wincent Colaiuta
2007-08-23 1:15 ` Nicolas Pitre
2007-08-23 1:40 ` Jon Smirl
2007-08-23 3:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-08-23 4:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-08-23 9:15 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-08-22 21:34 ` Reece Dunn
2007-08-23 9:10 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-08-23 10:20 ` Theodore Tso
2007-08-23 10:31 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-08-23 10:55 ` David Tweed
2007-08-23 11:24 ` Theodore Tso
2007-08-23 11:35 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-08-23 16:30 ` Jon Smirl
2007-08-23 11:25 ` Reece Dunn
2007-08-23 20:26 ` Alex Riesen
2007-08-23 21:14 ` David Kastrup
2007-08-23 21:33 ` Alex Riesen
2007-08-23 22:05 ` David Kastrup
2007-08-22 17:21 ` Nicolas Pitre
2007-08-23 9:55 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-08-23 15:19 ` Nicolas Pitre
2007-08-22 21:19 ` Reece Dunn
2007-08-23 9:05 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-08-23 18:40 ` Robin Rosenberg
2007-08-23 2:05 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2007-08-22 13:42 ` Matthieu Moy
2007-08-22 22:28 ` David Kastrup
2007-08-22 14:27 ` Andy Parkins
2007-08-22 14:57 ` Johannes Sixt
2007-08-22 16:20 ` Alex Riesen
2007-08-23 11:14 ` Johannes Schindelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.0.999.0708221252040.30176@woody.linux-foundation.org \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dak@gnu.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).