Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:43:19 +0200 From: Thomas Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020715174318.GA682@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <20020715162953.GA12030@lizzy.catnook.com> References: <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> <20020714181408.GB420@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> <20020715162953.GA12030@lizzy.catnook.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jos Backus (jos@catnook.com): > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 08:14:08PM +0200, Thomas Seck wrote: > > I think it is good not to have everyones' favourite scripting language in > > the base system. > > I agree. Nowhere did I say we should include all of them (that's what the > ports system is for). I'm saying that the current set of tools in the base is > limiting. Unless of course you _define_ the base to consist only of these > tools. I do. The base system should contain only the minimum amount of tools to keep the system running and "self contained", including basic tools for maintenance of third party applications. Everything else should be left to the user's choice. > We should pick one that has a reasonable chance of being able to be > supported in the base and stick with it. Perl had build and packaging issues > which made it a nightmare to support, fine, so let's pick another one that > does a better job than awk/sh/etc. The problems were not with the fact that > having a powerful scripting language in the base OS is necessarily bad but > with its implementation in FreeBSD. Unless a special scripting language is absolutely necessary for the system to function or to "rebuild" (bootstrap?) itself, it should stay in "ports land". I do not think it is wise to invest developer resources into maintenance and integration work the way it was done with Perl ever again. Apart from the usual problem of the maintainer being hit by a bus, kidnapped by aliens, losing interest, getting a life etc., you may run into political issues, Ruby for instance is GPL'ed. > > And VBA is not part of Windows(tm) by the way. > > Depends on your definition of "Windows", so I'm not going to argue this one. I apologise for being picky about it. Say VBS and I agree. VBA ships with MS Office and can IIRC be licenced for integration into your own apps. > Suffice it to say that a well-supported scripting language is a Good Thing. It depends. See ILY and friends for the benefits of scripting environments on Windows "Workstations". I agree in cmd.exe and the whole Windows toolchest being a joke when it comes to system administration. -- Thomas Seck 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?20020715174318.GA682>