[Lustre-devel] [lustre-devel] Language choice for Lustre tests

[Christopher J. Morrone]

We can pick a completely new language so no gets their current favorite. 
  I nominate go (http://golang.org/).  :)

On 10/24/2012 09:30 AM, DEGREMONT Aurelien wrote:
> Hello
>
> I've developed in Perl and Python for several years in both languages. I
> enjoyed both.
> Regarding starting a new project, for testing framework, here is several
> points which are the key points for choosing the right language.
>
> - Longevity
>
> Perl as a long history behind it, is available in all distros, that's
> true. But Perl is there for compatibility for running projects which
> were starting a long time ago. Nobody is starting a really big and fancy
> project in Perl nowadays. All new hackers are only speaking of Python or
> Ruby. You will not attract contributors with Perl. Perl 5 is very
> compatible because no new changes is really added to this language.
> And do not tell me that Perl 6 is coming. If Perl 6 is an option, then
> there is no issue with Python 3 and forget your compatibility.
>
> - Compat
>
> Developping in Python, for a large number of environment means coding
> for Python 2.4+. This will run nicely on Python up to 2.7
> As long as only Python 2 only is concerned, compat for Python is fine.
> But I agree that Python 3 is coming, and at long term, it should be
> taken in account even if no major distro is using it right now.
> (No Python 3 before RHEL7 or next Ubuntu LTS (14.04))
>
> -Lustre is for system people
>
> Lustre is developped by system guys, which mainly use vim or emacs to
> develop in Lustre. Very few of them are using IDE or stuff like Maven.
> Population developing Java with Maven is the exact opposite of guys
> coding in C, for Kernel code. Moreover, JVM are awful to install
> regarding a standard Python, Perl or Ruby interpreter in all major distro.
>
>
> My choice would go for Python 2 with a clear path to migrate to Python 3
> when needed (in 1 year)
>
>
> Aurélien
>
>
>
> Le 24/10/2012 10:44, Roman Grigoryev a écrit :
>> Hi Kilian,
>>
>> if you want I could try to explain why not bash from my point of view.
>>
>> I agree that bash is language which could be used for test frameworks
>> and test-framework.sh prove it. But some
>> bash feature make current framework support pretty hard. For example, I
>> don't see good way to  use  bash unit tests for test-framework.sh
>>
>> More structured requests:
>>
>> 1) Language features. Perl/Python/Java has many features which allows
>> simple write complex logic (OOP,AOP and so on)
>> 2) Pretty wide set of libraries.
>> 3) powerful and useful unit test frameworks.
>> 4) support tools, e.g. inline documentation, schema generator based on
>> code, coverage collectiors, copyright checkers
>>
>> Ubuntu is building by Intel
>> (http://build.whamcloud.com/job/lustre-b2_3/), so looks like it is
>> important platform.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>      Roman
>>> Hi Roman,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Roman Grigoryev
>>> <roman_grigoryev at xyratex.com>  wrote:
>>>> RH5 has only python2.4, SL61  has python2.4 and python2.6, and looks
>>>> like
>>>> only last Fedora will have python3.
>>> I agree that inter-version compatibility could be a problem with
>>> Python. But to take this argument literally, the best way to avoid
>>> compatibility issues is to use the widest-spread and most version
>>> consistent language across supported distributions, ie. bash.
>>>
>>>> In same time, Ubuntu says that from next
>>>> release want to have only Python 3.
>>> Since only RHEL, CentOS and SLES are supported, should we really care
>>> about python versions in Ubuntu?
>>> When installing Lustre in Ubuntu, users already have to do their own
>>> packaging, so I'm not sure that having to install a specific version
>>> of a scripting language would make much of a difference.
>>>
>>>> Now Lustre tests compatibility for wide set of system is solved by
>>>> shell and
>>>> standard utilities. Perl also has great
>>>> compatibility history, many scripts could work on latest version as
>>>> 10 years
>>>> ago. It is reason why I see Perl as
>>>> good decision.
>>> So what's wrong with bash again? If it's just "too flexible, easy to
>>> abuse", I'm afraid there's little in Perl to prevent falling into the
>>> same pitfalls. :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lustre-devel mailing list
>> Lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
>> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-devel mailing list
> lustre-devel at lists.opensfs.org
> http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-opensfs.org
> .
>