Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:41:11 +1000 From: Sean <sean@gothic.net.au> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Interpreted language(s) in the base Message-ID: <B3A8E893-89BB-4A01-8D84-394D38AEB6C0@gothic.net.au> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1008152240370.66595@qbhto.arg> References: <4C6505A4.9060203@FreeBSD.org> <4C650B75.3020800@FreeBSD.org> <4C651192.9020403@FreeBSD.org> <i477eo$i4d$1@dough.gmane.org> <4C673898.2080609@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTim_prShRiHkLnFbhek9%2Beaa-KaJ5oZtNo%2BLd0K1@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1008152240370.66595@qbhto.arg>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 16/08/2010, at 4:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Ivan Voras wrote: > >> This is my long-term point - it really would be beneficial to have an >> alternative, richer language in base which would fall between the >> categories of "a good system language but far too complex for simple >> string-parsing stuff" which is C and "a good glue language for system >> utilities but lacking more evolved concepts" which is shell. > > I sort of agree with you here, but I don't. :) ONE of the reasons that perl was axed from the base was that it was very very hard to keep the bmake glue up to date. However, a bigger reason was that it was impossible to marry our concept of a "stable" branch with the ever-evolving world that was perl. We often had a situation where a long-lived stable branch would have a VERY stale version of perl in it, to the point that the only rational course of action was to disable the perl build and install a usable version from ports. We do not want to go back down that road. (And I'm not speculating here, I lived through it.) > And lest anyone think "that's just perl", look at the history of TCL in the base system as well.help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B3A8E893-89BB-4A01-8D84-394D38AEB6C0>