Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 14:57:16 +1030 (CST) From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> To: davidn@sdev.usn.blaze.net.au (David Nugent) Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, terry@lambert.org, roberto@keltia.freenix.fr, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do! Message-ID: <199611210427.OAA11100@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <Mutt.19961121150743.davidn@sdev> from David Nugent at "Nov 21, 96 03:07:43 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Nugent stands accused of saying: > > > > I think that there's a very important line to be drawn between "I > > don't think I need it in the system" and "It should not be in the > > system". > > Agreed. But there's also the distinction between "needed" and > "desired". Certainly *I* regard Perl as an indispensible tool > for what I do. I'm less certain that everyone else would regard > it in the same light, which is why I still don't think it appropriate > for a *base* distribution. It's not a question of whether _everyone_ needs it, but whether a sufficient number of people need it. I think that so far the evidence indicates that this is the case. > > Yes, lots of people want or need it in what they do, but whether it > is *needed* to run/install/build the base system is a different > question. Right now there is some dependance on perl (and using an > outdated and unsupported version), but my worry is that it being > there in the first place is more likely to increase that dependance. If the only criteria for the 'base' system was whether the tool was required to build the system, FreeBSD would me much skinnier. I seriously doubt that anyone would consider that a useful criteria on which to judge something's "membership rights". > Perl5 is huge and is delivered with quite a deal of bloat. Too big > for the small dependancies that currently exist. If we used perl You are still thinking of Perl in the light of its use as support for other things in the system, rather than as a standard service for users. It is this latter case that most strongly argues for Perl in the tree, as with Tcl. > If all that was required for a proper perl5 distribution was the > perl executable itself, I'd have no real argument. It is all of > the unneeded (for the *base* distribution) cruft that comes with > it that is the problem. Even perl4 has this problem to a lesser > extent, but as I read it, this (size/unnecessary bloat problem) > is the root of the reluctance to upgrade perl4 to perl5. If the bloat is truly excessive, then it belongs in a seperate distribution (eg. perl-support) that can be added to the system if required. I seriously doubt whether the alleged 'bloat' would actually be significant in the big picture. I would hope that the growth of the "standard footprint" of FreeBSD would encourage the minimalist faction to actually extract their digits and do something about identifying the "core" of the system and making it a base component. I'm entirely in agreement with the basic principle, but I strongly believe that we need to incorporate mature and ubiquitous tools in as seamless and standard a fashion as possible. > David Nugent, Unique Computing Pty Ltd - Melbourne, Australia -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@gsoft.com.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control. (ph) +61-8-8267-3493 [[ ]] Unix hardware collector. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611210427.OAA11100>