Open Stack

On 05/14/2016 03:00 AM, Adam Young wrote:
> On 05/13/2016 08:21 PM, Dieterly, Deklan wrote:
>> If we allow Go, then we should also consider allowing JVM based
>> languages.
> Nope.  Don't get me wrong, I've written more than my fair share of Java
> in my career, and I like it, and I miss automated refactoring and real
> threads.  I have nothing against Java (I know a lot of you do).
>
> Java fills the same niche as Python.  We already have one of those, and
> its very nice (according to John Cleese).

A couple of folks in this thread already stated that the primary reason 
to switch from Python-based languages is the concurrency story. JVM 
solves it and does it in the same manner as Go (at least that's my 
assumption).

(not advocating for JVM, just trying to understand the objection)

>
> So, what I think we are really saying here is "what is our Native
> extension story going to be? Is it the traditional native languages, or
> is it something new that has learned from them?"
>
> Go is a complement to Python to fill in the native stuff.  The
> alternative is C or C++.  Ok Flapper, or Rust.

C, C++, Rust, yes, I'd call them "native".

A language with a GC and green threads does not fall into "native" 
category for me, rather the same as JVM.

>
> This is coming from someone  that has done Kernel stuff.  I did C++ in
> both the Windows and Linux worlds.  I've written inversion of control
> stuff in C++ template metaprogramming.  I am not personally afraid of
> writing code in either language. But I don't want to inflict that on
> OpenStack.  Its a question of reducing complexity, not increasing it.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev