Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 18:07:08 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), gclarkii@main.gbdata.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Who needs Perl? We do! Message-ID: <199611220107.SAA13545@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199611220101.LAA15889@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <199611220051.RAA13441@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199611220101.LAA15889@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Smith writes: > Nate Williams stands accused of saying: > > > > > > This devolves to "nothing belongs in the source tree". If you accept > > > any other argument, then we are talking about what level of > > > service/redundancy (depending on perspective) is appropriate. > > > > Everything in the tree has a purpose. I can't do *anything* with TCL, > > and nothing in the tree uses TCL. I need the compiler to rebuild > > myself, but I don't need TCL for *anything* (w/regards to the system). > > *You* may not be able to do anything with Tcl, but *I* can. *I* > can't do anythying with Perl, but *other* people can. Nobody uses > the entire feature set of the system; that is a given. > > > TCL alone doesn't provide anything, while ls does (it's part of the OS). > > Tcl is actually used for BMaking stuff, as you may have noticed. > Jordan is bolting the new install together using it. I'm working on > some configuration tools using it. Let's see those tools, and then I'll shutup. Again, there are lots of *useful* things that we could bring in, but they aren't used and/or essential. Should we bring in Python as well, and what about the new Limbo compiler from the folks at Lucent (nee Bell Labs). What about the ADA compiler from the GNU folks? Where do you draw the line between 'useful to some' and 'bloat'. It was decided a *LONG* time ago that unless a utility was part of the standard BSD distribution and/or was required for the running system it shouldn't be part of the tree. 'libforms' was recently deleted since it was a 'good idea' that never came to pass. It might have been a useful tool, but *FreeBSD* doesn't use it. > 'ls' is only useful if you are a shell user, and need to see what > files are on the disk. There are plenty of systems where 'ls' isn't > particularly useful at all. Like I said, we're talking about a matter > of degree, not principle. FreeBSD is sold as a multi-user Unix system. 'ls' is required on that, and as well it's distributed as part of the 'standard BSD' tools. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611220107.SAA13545>