SoC

[Garrett Cooper]

Garrett Cooper wrote:
> Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> Duane Whitty wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 15 May 2007 at  1:05:07 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>>> Tom Evans wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 2007-05-14 at 22:17 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>>>>> Ruby's nice, but it's built on Perl so I have suspicions on its 
>>>>>> overall usability / speed given my experience with Perl over the 
>>>>>> past 4 months daily for work :(.. Ruby's just the new big thing 
>>>>>> for programming languages, so everyone's into it. Kind of like how 
>>>>>> Java was compared to C/C++ a few years back. But once everything 
>>>>>> dies down people will realize that they'll still have to program 
>>>>>> in C/C++/Perl for real-world applications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Python seems better than Ruby from what I can see, but I really 
>>>>>> don't like the mandatory indentation thing. Ew..
>>>>>>
>>>>> Rubies are better Perls. That's the only connection between the 
>>>>> two. One
>>>>> day, a Japanese programmer got fed up with Perl, and wrote a better
>>>>> language (for varying meanings of better).
>>>>>
>>>>> Its not based or built on Perl in any respect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Python and Ruby both have the same targets; to speed development time
>>>>> and increase programmer productivity.
>>>> But one must make a Perl before one can make a Ruby. Maybe that was 
>>>> what I was trying to aim for.
>>>>
>>>> Ruby's nice, but it seems like it's going to be a bit passe in a few 
>>>> years like Java was for compilable / interpretable languages.
>>>>
>>>> -Garrett
>>  >
>>> None of this matters
>>>
>>>
>>> My only point is that if you need something quick to explore the 
>>> format of
>>> pkgdb.db or INDEX.db you are pretty well assured of finding a tool you
>>> can work with; Perl, Python, or Ruby.  If these aren't sufficient use C.
>>>
>>> The pkg_* tools are written in C so in C they will be modified; but no
>>> harm in doing initial exploration and prototyping with something else.
>>>
>>> Let's stay focused!
>>>
>>> Duane
>>
>> Ok, finally dumped the full database. Will analyze closely later on 
>> tonight.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Garrett
>>
>> PS If you installed ruby-bdb, simply running "make config" in the 
>> ports-mgmt/portupgrade directory and selecting ruby-bdb1 won't do. You 
>> have to go into databases/ruby-bdb, do make deinstall, then go to 
>> databases/ruby-bdb1 and do make install, or something similar.
> 
>     If you haven't seen my entry yet, and you're interested, I've posted 
> my analysis of the INDEX-*.db file at: 
> <http://blogs.freebsdish.org/gcooper/2007/05/19/behind-index-db>.
>     I'd like to really discuss the additional metadata that gets tacked 
> onto each database file, in particular, is it necessary, and is there a 
> better way to do that?
>     Also, the whole Ruby ports tools writing to the ports db 
> consistently instead of at exit is another item which probably should be 
> discussed too (someone brought this up earlier).
> Thanks,
> -Garrett

Posted more results here: 
<http://blogs.freebsdish.org/gcooper/2007/05/20/the-inefficiencies-of-pkgdbdb/>. 
Needless to say, I'm not happy with Portupgrade.

-Garret