Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:43:41 +1000 From: Andrew Reilly <areilly@bigpond.net.au> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Interpreted language(s) in the base Message-ID: <20100818134341.GA88861@johnny.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1008152240370.66595@qbhto.arg> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:15:55PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > got any other suggestions? This is very much a "sorry I asked" question, but is none-the less quite a good one, given the size of the hole to be plugged. I think that a reasonable answer for this sort of thing might be one of the dynamic languages that compiles to C, like (perhaps) one of the schemes (chicken, gambit-C, bigloo, etc). You get the benefit of flexibility and dynamism with good regexp and data structure ability, good performance, and only requiring the build tools available in the base system, as long as you don't want to be the developer: just ship the C code (as well as the source, of course). Unfortunately it seems that quite a lot of people have issues with lisp syntax these days. There are some other compile-to-C languages that might work too. [Aside: I think that the answer to this question might get a *lot* more interesting once we have llvm in the base system (it comes along with clang). There are (and I'm sure will be more) languages that compile down to llvm byte-code without the contortions required in going through C.] Cheers, -- Andrew
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100818134341.GA88861>