From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Nov 20 19:46:21 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA02131 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:46:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au [129.127.96.120]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA02120 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 1996 19:46:13 -0800 (PST) Received: (from msmith@localhost) by genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au (8.8.2/8.7.3) id OAA10837; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:14:53 +1030 (CST) From: Michael Smith Message-Id: <199611210344.OAA10837@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do! In-Reply-To: from David Nugent at "Nov 20, 96 04:28:42 pm" To: davidn@sdev.usn.blaze.net.au (David Nugent) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:14:52 +1030 (CST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk David Nugent stands accused of saying: > > Yes, I use it quite a bit, but in a base distribution I don't really > see it as an appropriate tool. It is certainly easier that programming > in, say, bourne shell, and probably significantly faster too. But I > still think it is a mistake it being part of the base system. I think that there's a very important line to be drawn between "I don't think I need it in the system" and "It should not be in the system". The former is fine, and probably applies to a lot of people. Then again, it can also be applied to 90% of the system for 90% of users - the point being that when you aggregate everything that people want/need, you cover prettymuch everything. My point is that there are a sufficient number of people that consider Perl a 'should-have' to justify its inclusion on those grounds. The latter point bears discussion; someone putting this point needs to offer a counter to the benefits promised by the former. So far, most of the arguments have been "because I don't think it should be" (which counts for very little), or "because Perl keeps changing" (which has been comprehensively refuted by Perl users I am inclined to trust). Other arguments that have been offered for the latter in previous discussions; "Perl is too big" (size is relative, disk is cheap), "Perl would be too hard to track" (contrib scheme should fix this). I'm still open to argument on this; I just haven't heard a counter that holds up under scrutiny. > David Nugent, Unique Computing Pty Ltd - Melbourne, Australia -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[ ]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[