[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Introduction

From: pohl <pohl_at_screaming.org>
Date: 2001-03-02 17:16:07 CET

cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
>
> I've heard/read this statement on more than a few occasions, and each
> time I seem to have failed to understand the basis for the statement.
> In my experience, the maintainability of a piece of software is tied
> far less to the language of choice or the size of the program, but
> instead is directly proportional to how that language was weilded, and
> how thoroughly that code was documented.
> ...
> I'd love to hear some more in-depth reasons why people oppose Perl
> *outside* of suffering through situations as described above.

I'm not a very skilled programmer in any language, but I do know that
I have a more difficult time going back over my own code when it was
written in perl. Your observation about how one wields the language
is astute, but I also think that the effort to wield perl correctly is
far more herculean than for other languages. That's my failing, though,
and I respect anybody who doesn't feel the larger burden of discipline.

While we're on the subject of language bindings, I'd like to ask if
anybody here has considered how one would write a client class library
in Java? Would it require maintaining separate implementations in
Java of both Neon and libsvn_ra_dav of one didn't want to go the
less-portable JNI route?

I'm thinking about something along the lines of jcvs.
http://www.jcvs.org/

----
pohl@screaming.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:24 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.