Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:42:43 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Interpreted language(s) in the base Message-ID: <81DF8D90-59E4-41F5-BAB8-556403D2E100@bigpond.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20100818142852.GA80221@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> References: <4C6505A4.9060203@FreeBSD.org> <4C650B75.3020800@FreeBSD.org> <4C651192.9020403@FreeBSD.org> <i477eo$i4d$1@dough.gmane.org> <4C673898.2080609@FreeBSD.org> <AANLkTim_prShRiHkLnFbhek9%2Beaa-KaJ5oZtNo%2BLd0K1@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1008152240370.66595@qbhto.arg> <20100818134341.GA88861@johnny.reilly.home> <20100818142852.GA80221@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Luigi, On 19/08/2010, at 00:28 , Luigi Rizzo wrote: > slightly off topic but I disagree on the latter part. I didn't expect everyone to agree. Not sure that I do, necessarily, = either. (A neat, small language like TCL or Lua is probably better for = most of the uses we're discussing here.) Just making a low-impact = suggestion to the problem of making use of a higher-level language than = C while not dragging large lumps of code into core, or accumulating = maintenance issues. > The whole point of having source code is to be able to make > modifications, small or large, private or ones to be contributed > back. As a teacher, i am very concerned about the ease-of-use for > non-developer types: it is important to make it easy for people to > experiments, as this is one of the ways people learn things. I'm not making any suggestion about preventing or discouraging = tinkering. After all, we used to carry f2c around in the base, in order = to support Fortran code. There's no particular reason *not* to provide = the front-end for (whatever language), but so long as it's readily = available in ports, and build-able form a base config, I don't see that = being in base is essential. > Having sources in some fantastic new language 'fuffa' and no 'fuffa2c' > tool is almost as bad as having no source. This is an opinion I certainly don't share. There are many languages = that I don't like but that doesn't make them useful, or even = best-for-purpose in their niche. (a) I'm not suggesting that we don't = provide source, and (b) learning a new language is an excellent = excellent exercise for students, and one that they're going to have to = go through often, for the rest of their careers. > (in fact, it is like the > joke of supplying source for the GPL'd software in your brand new > LCD tv or appliance. I'd like to know who will ever be able to build > an updated image and upload it to the appliance) It's nothing of the sort, of course. In the scenario I suggested, the = task of updating the putative program would involve the editors = available in base, to edit the source shipped with the system. Only the = compilation of the edited source might or might not be gated by = installing the port for the putative compiler. Several of the examples = I gave originally come with an interpreter and debugging environment, so = even that potential argument need not be a blocker. Not a high bar to = entry, I suggest. Cheers, --=20 Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?81DF8D90-59E4-41F5-BAB8-556403D2E100>