From owner-freebsd-current Sat Mar 16 03:04:11 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id DAA26169 for current-outgoing; Sat, 16 Mar 1996 03:04:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from grumble.grondar.za (root@grumble.grondar.za [196.7.18.130]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id DAA26139 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 1996 03:04:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from grumble.grondar.za (mark@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grumble.grondar.za (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA12462; Sat, 16 Mar 1996 13:02:59 +0200 (SAT) Message-Id: <199603161102.NAA12462@grumble.grondar.za> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org (FreeBSD-current users) Subject: Re: Ok, perl5 is out, but is the menu stuff ok? Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 13:02:58 +0200 From: Mark Murray Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk J Wunsch wrote: > As Gary Clark II wrote: > > > Ok, we know that perl5 is a no go:) > > Not once and for all. > > Perhaps it would convince people more when i point out again that > Perl4 proved to be _really buggy_ for me? It consistently dumped core > for one of my scripts, while Perl5 didn't (but this *was* a Perl4 > script!). > > Aren't there any chances to split Perl5, so to benefit from the new > technology (and bugfixes), without bloating the base system too much? > The remainder (like dynamic modules) could be split off into a port. Here is something reasonable! We all know by now that Perl5 is huge, but we do not need it all, right? The shared goodies, lots of the libraries, that sort of stuff I would go with being kinda optional? (I am busy doing the Perl5.002 port right now, so I'll be able to give a breakdown in a couple of hours...) M -- Mark Murray 46 Harvey Rd, Claremont, Cape Town 7700, South Africa +27 21 61-3768 GMT+0200 Finger mark@grondar.za for PGP key