Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:34:34 -0700 From: Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020716003456.GD54500@lizzy.catnook.com> In-Reply-To: <20020715214445.C53266@regency.nsu.ru> References: <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> <20020715214445.C53266@regency.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 09:44:45PM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> 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.
I don't think ``we don't want a powerful scripting language in the base
system'' was one of them.
> 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.
portupgrade :-) (Sure, anything that can be done in Ruby can be done in C; no
need to make that argument again).
> '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.
As must be clear by now, I respectfully beg to differ.
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/
jos@catnook.com _/_/ _/_/_/ require 'std/disclaimer'
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?20020716003456.GD54500>