Re: Rewriting pkglint in a portable language

["D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:07:58 -0500
"J. Lewis Muir" <jlmuir%imca-cat.org@localhost> wrote:
> I disagree on the topic of porting code from 2 to 3 (as I expressed in
> [1]).  Also, I think you might be giving too much credit to the Python
> developers on the 2 to 3 conversion: when Python 3 came out, the
> Python developers didn't say Python 2 would be supported until 2020;

That may be true but they did recognize the problem soon after and
dealt with it properly.

> > My short experience with Java suggests that you may be right there.
> 
> Would you be willing share what was not backward compatible?

It was a long time ago and things may have changed.  That's why I defer
to others' opinions.  I do remember that it mattered which run-time you
used so the promise of "compile once, run everywhere" was more theory
than practice.  Given that I was able to write reasonably portable C I
never vested in Java.  Things may be better now.  Python (once you pick
a version) is easy to write portably too.

Of course, my first professional language was assembler so everything
since seems pretty portable to me.  :-)

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy%NetBSD.org@localhost>
http://www.NetBSD.org/ IM:darcy%Vex.Net@localhost