Re: cvs better than git?

[Gua Chung Lim <gua.chunglim%gmail.com@localhost>]

* Riccardo Mottola <riccardo.mottola%libero.it@localhost> wrote:
> Mercurial? no go: python, please not. Just for this reason, maybe it would
> be perfect if written in equivalent C/C++! And please, don't cite me
> "rust"... even worse. Core things should be written with core tools.
> 
> Maybe some sort of "anonymous checkout" of mercurial exists written in C?
I will emphasize on the language being used.
I agree with you with exception of C++.
Cores of all Unix-liked systems should be coded in only C and nothing else.
Previously I used FreeBSD with inclusion of cvsup out of the box.
IIRC, cvsup was coded in Modular-3, which was acceptable for historical reason.
FreeBSD then offerred the alternative named csup,
which was cvsup-equivalent in C version. I was very glad.
But csup had too short life. FreeBSD then switched to svn a year later.
Whether or not svn is good, csup developers' hearts were already broken.
But svn is still coded in C. It is still acceptable.
Git was born outside BSD land. But it is still coded in C.
Linux is also considered a Unix-liked operating system.
cvs in NetBSD is also coded in C. (But it is much criticized.)
I don't see any good reasons to implement Hg in rust or python.
Please do not say C is hard to implement and maintain the code.
Kernels for nearly all operating systems in the world were coded in C.
How can all developers implement or maintain the code?
C is very well mature, It has been around here for many decades.
And it is much more portable than any other languages including C++,
which has too many standards.
And C++ committee doesn't even care backward compatability.
So please adhere with only C, like what POSIX does.

-- 
Gua Chung Lim
 
Life is a pleasant lie and death is a painful truth.