Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 17:34:44 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: gclarkii@main.gbdata.com (Gary Clark II), hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do! Message-ID: <199611220034.RAA13292@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199611212334.KAA15204@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <199611211744.LAA28802@main.gbdata.com> <199611212334.KAA15204@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[ Reduced the Cc list down. Please try and minimize the lists ] > > Next point, people are jumping on Perl about how we have so few system > > utils based on it it should go, where are the utils based on TCL? > > Wrong mentality. I have about 20,000 lines of Tcl here in out product > which load a couple of custom libraries and talk to our hardware. This > is what having Tcl in the tree is about, and is why I see Perl in the > tree as a Very Good Thing. But the policy is that nothing belongs in the 'src' tree unless something else relies on it. You can get TCL via the ports (or could have until we brought it into the tree) and it should have stayed there since nothing still uses it and it's been over 5 months. I complained when it was brought in and was told 'Real Soon Now', but nothing has happened. It's simply bloat that is useless to *most* users, and has no use in the main tree. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but unless that happens soon I'm gonna stay in the 'complain and moan' camp. (I *HATE* seeing stupid TCL man-pages that come up instead of the C routines). Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611220034.RAA13292>