[PC-BSD Dev] RFC: Choice of a Less Error-Prone Scripting Language for Configuration Scripts + Standard Data Format
torsten.eichstaedt at web.de
Sat Mar 9 16:09:01 PST 2013
Am Samstag, 9. März 2013, 23:47:51 schrieb Radio młodych bandytów:
> And I think that for programming noobs Python's syntax is much more
> natural, so I certainly don't agree that noobs are more likely to be
> able to change things in JS compared to it.
I'd like to collect more comments like this from people who've had feedback
from "noobs" that had to quickly dive into a programming language to change
s/th to fit their needs. I would value the user's preferences here higher
than the programmer's/maintainer's who should be able to switch between a
bunch of languages.
> Commenting on safety, JS is weakly typed, so I see it being 1 notch
> below Lua and Python here.
There's cure for that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TypeScript
But I don't know if it's possible to have shebang scripts in Unix.
#!/usr/bin/typescript is certainly not what we need... ;)
> But Prolog beats them all in this regard and is very small. ;)
HereBy I SolemnlY DISALLOW any MOCKING COMMENT on the HONOURable PROLOG. AmeN.
Cfg mgmt's domain perfectly fits the Prolog paradigma; sadly it's not widely
used, thus people would fly me to the moon if I started to use it in user-
visible/accessible parts of SW. Or send me to the psychiatrist.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Dev