Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 20:14:08 +0200 From: Thomas Seck <tmseck-lists@netcologne.de> To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Package system flaws? Message-ID: <20020714181408.GB420@laurel.tmseck.homedns.org> In-Reply-To: <20020714164304.GA32774@lizzy.catnook.com> References: <p05111701b953f38542f8@[128.113.24.47]> <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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Jos Backus (jos@catnook.com): > On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 09:33:45AM -0400, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > > I suspect the only result of an attempt to re-write sysutils/portupgrade > > in a different language will be that the current developer of that tool > > will disappear. I suspect he chose his implementation lanaguge for a > > reason. Do you want the tool and developer, or a version in awk/sed/C? > > In case it wasn't clear, my previous remark was meant in jest. I would rather > have the tool (and the developer). > > Part of me still thinks it's a pity that we don't have a decent scripting > language (such as Ruby) as part of the base OS. Windows has Visual BASIC for > Applications - all due respect to the awk creators and maintainers, but surely > we can do better than awk/sh? I think it is good not to have everyones' favourite scripting language in the base system. And VBA is not part of Windows(tm) by the way. No one stops you from doing (cd /usr/ports/lang/ruby && make install). -- Thomas Seck 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?20020714181408.GB420>