On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Jelle van der Waa <je...@vdwaa.nl> wrote: > On 22/11/11 12:02, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: >> >> The 22/11/11, Karol Blazewicz wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht<nsebre...@piing.fr> >>> wrote: >> >>>> OP raised one or two benefits of Haskell over shell scripting. He is >>>> right even if it's somewhat partial: many of high-level languages have >>>> very good advantages over shell scripting. I do think pacman could be >>>> much better if rewritten in one of these languages. >>> >>> Isn't pacman written in C? >> >> Yep, sorry. >> >> s/shell scripting/low-level progrmming languages like C/g >> >> :-) >> > Pacman devs appreciatie patches, or in case you want to port pacman to > haskell, just do it. ( look for example at how the 64 bit port became > official ) > > as wise phrik tells me: > > 11:05 jelly1 | !toofishes > 11:05 phrik | patches welcome > > > -- > Jelle van der Waa >
In case you (ML subscribers) didn't know / forgot, phrik is an IRC bot :-) https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/IRC_Channel#.23archlinux_rules
