Re: PPC SHA-1 Updates in "pu"

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Jun 26, 2006, 06:49 UTC
Message-ID: <7vbqsgmmxq.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0606251537450.29667@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> I can live with it. Although I still think that it would be a good idea to 
> convert (at least the most commonly used) scripts to C.
>
> Perl, Python and sometimes even bash are good for fast prototyping. But 
> for serious work, such as profiling, they are not that good.

I expect the eventual primary customer of Git.xs to be gitweb.

I do not necessarily agree with what you just said about scripting languages. Shell is a very good implementation language for certain serious things that does not require performance and non command line UI.

> And you can see different behaviour on different platforms (plus things 
> like the SunCC requirement for XS on Solaris), which make the scripts less 
> robust.

I am not sure about "less robust" part, but it certainly involves initial pain to deal with portability across platforms.

That's why I want to make sure that the basics is sound before we spend too much time and attention on converting existing scripts. I think the major part of bringing Git.xs series acceptably mergeable is not about XS programming and Perl script conversion, but primarily about the work on the build infrastructure (Makefile, test scripts and .spec).