Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:44:45 +0700 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@regency.nsu.ru> To: Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020715214445.C53266@regency.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <20020714164304.GA32774@lizzy.catnook.com>; from jos@catnook.com on Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 09:42:42AM -0701 References: <p05111701b953f38542f8@[128.113.24.47]> <20020712121427.GD3678@lummux.tchpc.tcd.ie> <20020712144854.GA756@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <20020713054141.A26277@misty.eyesbeyond.com> <20020713011750.GA755@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <20020714042237.GD931@lizzy.catnook.com> <20020714042623.GB95460@squall.waterspout.com> <20020714095939.GA588@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <200207141333.g6EDXj0L031673@whizzo.transsys.com> <20020714164304.GA32774@lizzy.catnook.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 09:42:42AM -0701, Jos Backus wrote: > > Part of me still thinks it's a pity that we don't have a decent scripting > language (such as Ruby) as part of the base OS. Windows has Visual BASIC for We did have a very powerful one until recently -- Perl. I guess the fact it was removed from the base is for a very good reason. > Applications - all due respect to the awk creators and maintainers, but surely > we can do better than awk/sh? Oh please, can you show us something essential for base enough that could not be implemented in a sh/sed/awk way? I somewhat doubt it. 'cmon, it's pretty clear that Perl or Ruby is more of an overhead than of worth. Traditionally, UNIX lived for 30+ years without need for a monster like Perl or Ruby, in the base, clearly showing us that sh/awk/sed is a [very] decent scripting facility. ./danfe To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020715214445.C53266>