Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 05:05:51 +0100 (BST) From: Mark Valentine <mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, danfe@regency.nsu.ru (Alexey Dokuchaev), Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: scripting language in base system? Message-ID: <200207160405.g6G45peU024876@dotar.thuvia.org> In-Reply-To: <p05111715b9592dbce76a@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> > Date: Mon 15 Jul, 2002 > Subject: Re: scripting language in base system? > Perhaps that is the problem. Me, I want a good package-system, but > all the 30-year sh/sed/awk veterans don't seem to see a need for it. Whoa! That's not what this sh/expr/sed veteran said. I can live without a good package system (everything is possible given our minimal toolset; and why the heck do we even need that when we can write compilers in machine code...?). ;-b But it's still nice to have, which is why I'm expending energy on this discussion. (I know, it's such a commitment compared to patches...) I happen to think that a good package system can be written with existing base system tools, but I'm not (right now) stepping forward for the assignment. If libh makes it easier, even better. If it suffers from Second System Syndrome, so be it. (I'm not suggesting that it will.) If it means ruby goes in the base system, I applaud the visionary who makes that a success where Tcl and Perl failed! Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Valentine, Thuvia Labs <mark@thuvia.co.uk> <http://www.thuvia.co.uk>; "Tigers will do ANYTHING for a tuna fish sandwich." Mark Valentine uses "We're kind of stupid that way." *munch* *munch* and endorses FreeBSD -- <http://www.calvinandhobbes.com>; <http://www.freebsd.org>; 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?200207160405.g6G45peU024876>