On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 7:43 AM Patrick Georgi pgeorgi@google.com wrote:
Am Do., 30. Sept. 2021 um 15:22 Uhr schrieb Jack Rosenthal < jrosenth@google.com>:
IMO, any codebase is significantly easier and safer to maintain if there are tests.
Since we kinda-sorta support SPARK in our toolchain (not for the host though at this time), maybe we should evaluate doing a rewrite in SPARK then: Formal verification beats spot tests which may or may not cover the troublesome situations. ;-) (What I mean is that it's always possible to up the ante, not that we should actually do that. I'd rather get rid of the kconfig language, and even that idea has dubious value in this context.)
Yeah. Let's stay practical. Removing the Kconfig language entirely from the tree wouldn't exactly be feasible.
Both the C Kconfig and the Kconfiglib implementations are implementations that exist today, let's evaluate which one of them is better from a maintenance & stability perspective.
As for the idea of a Python 4 you seem to have here (or if it does come,
repeating the massive language differences we had between 2 and 3), it's unlikely to happen. Guido says that a "Python 4" at the scale Python 3 was is unlikely to happen https://www.techrepublic.com/article/programming-languages-why-python-4-0-will-probably-never-arrive-according-to-its-creator/ .
If Python 3->4 is only half as painful as 2->3, this would still be true - and still mean misery for 5+ years. No thanks.
I don't even think even half is in domain... if you give the article to read, Guido basically says we might just stay on Python 3 forever.
Patrick
Google Germany GmbH, ABC-Str. 19, 20354 Hamburg Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg Geschäftsführer: Paul Manicle, Halimah DeLaine Prado