Date: 06 Sep 1998 08:49:14 +0200 From: dag-erli@ifi.uio.no (Dag-Erling Coidan =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin Makefile src/lib Makefile src/etc/mtree BSD.usr.dist src Makefile.inc1 src/usr.bin/vi Makefile src/usr.bin/tclsh Makefile src/lib/libtcl Makefile Message-ID: <xzp4sulwxat.fsf@hrotti.ifi.uio.no> In-Reply-To: Mike Smith's message of "Sat, 05 Sep 1998 14:51:33 -0700" References: <199809052151.OAA06551@word.smith.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> writes: > > Is it really necessary to write the new package system in Tcl? Can't > > it be written in Perl? Am I the only one to consider Tcl bloat? > > It's not being written in Tcl, it uses Tcl as glue. This is what Tcl > is designed for, and something that Perl does very poorly. > > Please, enough with the language wars already. I'm not bitching about Tcl, I'm bitching about the necessity of including it in the base system. Tcl is relatively big (comparing gzipped tarballs, Tcl 8.1 is three times the size of BIND, twice the size of Sendmail, and half the size of gcc) and relatively unnecessary; every such piece of software we put in the base system raises the hardware requirements for a minimum installation and lengthens make world. This goes for Perl too, except that Perl is more ingrained than Tcl. DES -- Dag-Erling Smørgrav - dag-erli@ifi.uio.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzp4sulwxat.fsf>