Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 12:58:22 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Jordan K Hubbard <jkh@queasyweasel.com>, jos@catnook.com Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: scripting language in base system? Message-ID: <p0511171ab959ff6f0d2b@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <C7D7163F-9894-11D6-BCA3-0003938C7B7E@queasyweasel.com> References: <C7D7163F-9894-11D6-BCA3-0003938C7B7E@queasyweasel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 1:19 AM -0700 7/16/02, Jordan K Hubbard wrote:
>Guys,
>
>If libh ever makes it off the ground, you can bet that Tcl will
>enter the base system fairly rapidly since it will be required
>for everything from bootstrapping packages onto the system to
>actually installing the system itself.
>I also agree that Tcl has had a rocky history in terms of its
>upgrade strategy, but, for better or worse, development of the
>language seems to have reached a plateau with 8.4 and API
>stability ever since 8.0 was released has been pretty good, so
>I think the old arguments are simply outdated.
When I think about something like this, I wonder if we should
put tcl into the system under some unique name ("tclb"?), just
so *we* can decide if the base-system tcl will change when the
next great tcl API shows up. [the same would apply to ruby or
python in the base system]
One of the big pains with perl in the base system was that we
wanted that perl to remain stable (at least for the entire
lifetime of a freebsd-stable branch), while anyone who used
perl heavily would want new versions of perl as they became
stable. Ie, perl's "stable branch" is not on the same timetable
as freebsd's.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
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?p0511171ab959ff6f0d2b>