From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Nov 21 17:28:57 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA03727 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:28:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.mt.sri.com (rocky.mt.sri.com [206.127.76.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA03708 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:28:50 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.mt.sri.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id SAA13712; Thu, 21 Nov 1996 18:28:42 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 18:28:42 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199611220128.SAA13712@rocky.mt.sri.com> From: Nate Williams To: Michael Smith Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do! In-Reply-To: <199611220123.LAA16082@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <199611220107.SAA13545@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199611220123.LAA16082@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > ADA compiler from the GNU folks? Where do you draw the line between > > 'useful to some' and 'bloat'. > > That is _exactly_ what this thread has been about; ref. my original > post. In my opinion, the usefulness of Perl in the base system > outweighs the 'bloat' consideration. Agreed (to a point). > > It was decided a *LONG* time ago that unless a utility was part of the > > standard BSD distribution and/or was required for the running system it > > shouldn't be part of the tree. > > That's all well and good, but it presents a chicken-and-egg situation > for anyone trying to work outside the decades-old BSD model. You may > not consider this a problem; I do. Opinions differ. Yes, but anyone capable of developing a 'cool tool' with TCL that we can't live w/out is capable of installing a port, and *then* showing me how wonderful it is to justify bringing in TCL as part of the base system. Put the cart *before* the horse. Nate