language choice of alfs

Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at
Sun Dec 19 06:38:11 PST 2004

Jeremy Huntwork wrote:

> Sorry, but this isn't the way to go about it. If you want people to take 
> your suggestions seriously, you're going to *have* to give us a reason, 
> or even better, reasons for your preference.  We're not going to change 
> our mind simply because you tell us to.

Well, even though I don't really much of a preference one way or the 
other, I can supply some reasons to use Python instead of C (at least 
for the first round):

- quicker development time, as there is no need to build Makefiles, 
compile & link, worry about differences between host systems, etc.

- less time spent on building "infrastructure": data structures, 
locking, multi-threading, networking, etc.

Obviously all of this can (and has been) done in C, and will be again. 
There are distinct advantages to building a "version 1" or "testbed" to 
work out the protocols, syntaxes, etc. in a language that can do more 
for you. When these things have been worked out, then it can be 
converted to C for performance reasons (if there are any found).

If you do decide to jump right in building in C, I'd suggest taking a 
long look at both APR and glib2, as they provide a great deal of things 
that an application can use and are platform-agnostic already.

More information about the alfs-discuss mailing list