Re: [tlug] Darcs and the Lack of Haskell Programmers

[Edward Middleton <emiddleton@example.com>]

Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Curt Sampson writes:
>  > Darcs would be interesting; certain parts of it look complex enough that
>  > I probably wouldn't trust a Ruby rewrite of them.
>
> Before the "power-of-language" thread infects us here, let me point
> out that my claim is that git was designed from the git-go (as you
> were, men, as you were) to be driven by scripts, and thus presented a
> sane target for a shell driver.  When going to the next level down, it
> presented a straightforward API for the object DB, so Ruby code could
> easily be written for it.  Darcs and Bazaar are definitely not
> factored the same way, and I bet not Mercurial either.
>   

> And Darcs is something the cat coughed
> up as far as I can tell; I can see no designed API at all.  (Darcs 2
> may be better, but from comments on the Darcs lists I suspect not.)
>   

There seem to be two attempts to make a ruby Darcs extension[1].
A simple Google didn't bring up anything for Bazaar and Mercurial.

Edward

1. http://wiki.darcs.net/DarcsWiki/RubyDarcs
   http://eraserhead.net/darcs/darcs-ruby/