On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Jonathan Stone wrote:
> Brian D Chase writes:

> >It's obviously a desireable tool to have in one's box.
> 
> If only it wasnt written in such a godforsaken unportable language:)
> 
> [snip]

Well, I don't know if one can say the language is unportable.  If modula-3
code is written to adhere to whatever standard spec there is for modula-3,
and that code compiles with any standard modula-3 compiler, well I'd say
the language is portable.  In practice, modula-3 may not be supported on
many systems.  It can be said that this increases the "suck-quotient" of
the language. In this case, it's not supported across all of NetBSD so
that makes it suck for NetBSD.

The portablity thing is just speculation though, my exposure to the
language is deliberately limited. I spent my 3rd year in college in
Ireland and some of the classes were taught using Modula-3.  I opted to do
those classes work in 8086 assembler instead of learning Modula-3 since I
knew the lecturer was well versed in 8086 assembly language.  I dislike
"concept" languages.

It could be worse.  CVSup could be written in Ada.  GAACKKKK!!  My college
in the U.S. fed us that tripe on VAX/VMS for our 2nd year data structure
courses.  The pain the pain...

> >The gripe is that the tool is only available to a subset of users.  This
> >may not be an issue for FreeBSD, but NetBSD covers a much wider spectrum
> >of supported platforms.  The issues of cross-platform compatiblity are of
> >great importance to this audience.  Many of NetBSDs supported platform
> >have very meager resources relative to contemporary systems.  These slower
> >systems (operating just as final destinations for the trees) would greatly
> >benefit from less overhead in transfering files.
> 
> Yes. But it's precisely these platforms on which Modula-3 doesn't run
> :).

Er... which pretty much was my point.  ARRRGHH! IT SOUNDS LIKE PEOPLE ARE
ARGUING WITH ME WHEN MY WRITING IS INTENDED TO SUPPORT THEIR VIEW!!!
*BOOOM* [head explodes].

> [snip]
> 
> >And hey, what's to say that the mirror servers couldn't benefit just as
> >much as the master server by having to send less information.  More
> >optimal use of bandwidth is something that is desireable across the board.
> 
> They can. Just as long as they're an i386 or an alpha.  Problem is,
> many of the NetBSD servers where this would benefit aren't i386es or
> alphas.

Quit sounding like you're arguing with me!  You NetBSD people have too
many suppressed hostilities.  I'm gonna run back to my hippie peace and
love Linux friends if you guys don't start playing more nicely.

-brian.
---
Brian "JARAI" Chase | http://world.std.com/~bdc/ | VAXZilla LIVES!!!