Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:40:43 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com>, libh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BOF at BSDCon: FreeBSD Installer, Packages System Message-ID: <39F4A24B.F421AF5B@acm.org> References: <7131.972327788@winston.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> Well, fortunately, TCL is both compact ... and well-known to many.
My impression is that most of the "off-the-shelf" script languages
(Python, Perl, Tcl, etc, etc) started off small but have since
become quite bloated. I just compiled a short C program (given below)
with an embedded Tcl interpreter and got a 530k stripped executable.
Is that acceptable for sysinstall?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <tcl8.0/tcl.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
char *script = "set a 44";
Tcl_Interp * interp = Tcl_CreateInterp();
int result = Tcl_Eval(interp,script);
puts(interp->result);
if(result != TCL_OK) exit(1);
exit(0);
}
> Forth ... has such an acceptance problem ... Likewise
> lisp ... is a pretty hard sell ...
True, which is why I didn't push either one. I spent a few years
doing Forth development and really liked it, but I've learned not
to champion it too loudly.
> As to BASIC, well, ICK.
<ROFL> ... Apparently, another hard sell. ;-) I was thinking,
of course, of the more modern structured BASIC implementations
(Visual Basic is the best-known) which draw heavily on Pascal and C.
(Perl is heavily influenced by structured Basic, for example.)
If Tcl is sufficiently compact, it's a good choice (even despite it's
somewhat "unique" syntax); I'm just not sure that the current Tcl
systems are sufficiently compact. (I guess you could dig up an old
version...)
- Tim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39F4A24B.F421AF5B>