5 ms·

Lisp, erlang, forth, scheme, prolog, ML maintainer(s) needed urgently in Fedora

25 points by fogus 16y ago

mahmud 16y ago
Here is how to apply to become a maintainer: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
cageface 16y ago
It’s a shame these advanced languages don’t get more attention, since they are clearly better languages than the ones most programmers use day to day, and would solve their problems if only they tried them. Or, maybe programmers aren't as dumb as some people think and there's more to making a language productive than optimizing for 10 line examples?
- eru 16y ago
  They aren't advocating Perl. P.S. real world device drivers are written Forth. So it's not just optimized for ten-liners.
- chc 16y ago
  Which of those languages are you claiming is optimized for 10-line examples? If it had been one if the "scripting" languages (Ruby/Python/Perl), I might at least see some relevance since those were the initial use cases. But none of these are like that, and in fact most of them have trouble showing their benefits in toy examples.
brlewis 16y ago
The fact that the maintainer of Fedora packages is ready to pass them off does not mean the software in question is neglected/ignored. One of the listed packages is audacity. It just means one individual doesn't have time to maintain Fedora packages anymore.
TallGuyShort 16y ago
But it’s even more of a shame if people won’t even be able to try these languages because we lose them from Fedora entirely. That's really overstating the problem. I've worked with several of these languages, one of them for quite a large project - and I've never relied on anything but the language's official site to get the necessary tools. A lack of maintenance from Fedora isn't going to kill anything.
- oconnore 16y ago
  True, but the number of developers who expect batteries to be included is not small. And those are the people who "* for dummies" markets to. And when your manager goes to Barnes and Noble and sees an entire wall of "* in 3 days", guess what language he is going to pick for his next project?
  - eru 16y ago
    Java? More serious: Batteries included make it easier to get up to speed. It's also easier to use synaptic as an "AppStore" instead of hunting for everything out in the web. Though for languages that I am more familiar with, e.g. Haskell, I am more open to hunt myself (or install custom package managers like Haskell's cabal).
  - chc 16y ago
    Which language is my "X For Dummies"-toting boss going to pick? Probably not the one with the best Fedora package.
  - chc 16y ago
    Which language is my "X For Dummies"-toting boss going to pick? Probably not the one with the best Fedora package.
- DrJokepu 16y ago
  Consider this: many compilers are written in the language they compile, hence they require some sort of bootstrapping. The popular Common Lisp implementation SBCL for example is written in Common Lisp. Bootstrapping compilers is bit of a hassle and not a very newbie-friendly process. I'm quite sure that the lack of prepackaged versions of these languages in Fedora would seriously affect the usage of these languages in Fedora.
cageface 16y ago
If anything I'd like to see fewer packages provided as part of the distros and a cleaner system for installing them separately. I practically never use any of the installed versions of languages in Ubuntu. They're usually out of date, broken down into too many sub-packages, over-specified on dependencies, and unable to play nicely with packages you install yourself via gems/easy_install/whatever.
- vetinari 16y ago
  They are usually not installed by default (unless something pulls them as a dependency - can happen for perl or python, but definitely not lisp/erlang/forth... by default) and they are installed separately. The situation is exactly what you ask for - they are available for separate install, right there in distribution repository. You can also choose - either too many subpackages, or overspecified on dependencies. You can not have both, for obvious reasons. Wrt gems/easy_install/whatever, do you realize that these language specific systems are broken by design and interoperating with them is not exactly easy?
  - spacemanaki 16y ago
    Do you have some more information about why they are broken? I'm not trying to call you out, I'm just curious and don't know much about these systems, or and couldn't find anything when I went looking for criticisms.
    - vetinari 16y ago
      Oh, so you probably missed the discussion between Debian and Rails two years ago. Have look there: http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/upstream-devs.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/upstream-devs.html The second link describes what is wrong with gems-only approach. See also links at the bottom of the first page.
      - avar 16y ago

25 points by fogus 16y ago

Here is how to apply to become a maintainer: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join

cageface 16y ago

It’s a shame these advanced languages don’t get more attention, since they are clearly better languages than the ones most programmers use day to day, and would solve their problems if only they tried them. Or, maybe programmers aren't as dumb as some people think and there's more to making a language productive than optimizing for 10 line examples?

eru 16y ago
They aren't advocating Perl. P.S. real world device drivers are written Forth. So it's not just optimized for ten-liners.
chc 16y ago
Which of those languages are you claiming is optimized for 10-line examples? If it had been one if the "scripting" languages (Ruby/Python/Perl), I might at least see some relevance since those were the initial use cases. But none of these are like that, and in fact most of them have trouble showing their benefits in toy examples.

brlewis 16y ago

The fact that the maintainer of Fedora packages is ready to pass them off does not mean the software in question is neglected/ignored. One of the listed packages is audacity. It just means one individual doesn't have time to maintain Fedora packages anymore.

TallGuyShort 16y ago

But it’s even more of a shame if people won’t even be able to try these languages because we lose them from Fedora entirely. That's really overstating the problem. I've worked with several of these languages, one of them for quite a large project - and I've never relied on anything but the language's official site to get the necessary tools. A lack of maintenance from Fedora isn't going to kill anything.

oconnore 16y ago
True, but the number of developers who expect batteries to be included is not small. And those are the people who "* for dummies" markets to. And when your manager goes to Barnes and Noble and sees an entire wall of "* in 3 days", guess what language he is going to pick for his next project?
- eru 16y ago
  Java? More serious: Batteries included make it easier to get up to speed. It's also easier to use synaptic as an "AppStore" instead of hunting for everything out in the web. Though for languages that I am more familiar with, e.g. Haskell, I am more open to hunt myself (or install custom package managers like Haskell's cabal).
- chc 16y ago
  Which language is my "X For Dummies"-toting boss going to pick? Probably not the one with the best Fedora package.
- chc 16y ago
  Which language is my "X For Dummies"-toting boss going to pick? Probably not the one with the best Fedora package.
DrJokepu 16y ago
Consider this: many compilers are written in the language they compile, hence they require some sort of bootstrapping. The popular Common Lisp implementation SBCL for example is written in Common Lisp. Bootstrapping compilers is bit of a hassle and not a very newbie-friendly process. I'm quite sure that the lack of prepackaged versions of these languages in Fedora would seriously affect the usage of these languages in Fedora.

cageface 16y ago

If anything I'd like to see fewer packages provided as part of the distros and a cleaner system for installing them separately. I practically never use any of the installed versions of languages in Ubuntu. They're usually out of date, broken down into too many sub-packages, over-specified on dependencies, and unable to play nicely with packages you install yourself via gems/easy_install/whatever.

vetinari 16y ago
They are usually not installed by default (unless something pulls them as a dependency - can happen for perl or python, but definitely not lisp/erlang/forth... by default) and they are installed separately. The situation is exactly what you ask for - they are available for separate install, right there in distribution repository. You can also choose - either too many subpackages, or overspecified on dependencies. You can not have both, for obvious reasons. Wrt gems/easy_install/whatever, do you realize that these language specific systems are broken by design and interoperating with them is not exactly easy?
- spacemanaki 16y ago
  Do you have some more information about why they are broken? I'm not trying to call you out, I'm just curious and don't know much about these systems, or and couldn't find anything when I went looking for criticisms.
  - vetinari 16y ago
    Oh, so you probably missed the discussion between Debian and Rails two years ago. Have look there: http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/upstream-devs.html http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/upstream-devs.html The second link describes what is wrong with gems-only approach. See also links at the bottom of the first page.
    - avar 16y ago