Date: 23 Jun 1996 18:55:10 +0200 From: Peter Mutsaers <plm@xs4all.nl> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tcl -- what's going on here. Message-ID: <87enn6sbo1.fsf@plm.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: J Wunsch's message of Sun, 23 Jun 1996 12:52:48 %2B0200 (MET DST) References: <87ohmasctn.fsf@totally-fudged-out-message-id>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> On Sun, 23 Jun 1996 12:52:48 +0200 (MET DST), J Wunsch
>> <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> said:
JW> As Tony Kimball wrote:
>> up-to-date version, and is just plain evil. I suggested that I
>> would be willing to rewrite those few perl kludges which are
>> current. I was rebuffed.
JW> They are not ``kludges''. The authors of those tools
JW> deliberately choose Perl for them, not since they didn't knew
JW> C, but since they felt that Perl was simply more adequate.
JW> Something like text processing (or pattern matching etc.) in C
JW> is simply a kludge, where Perl allows for elegant (and easier
JW> to maintain) solutions.
One could also create such tools in sh/awk/sed etc.
Awk and sed are also very good for text processing (though perl is
slightly better).
I scanned which files in current use perl:
catman
makewhatis
h2ph etc :)
/usr/src/sys/pci/locate.pl (is this one used?)
keyinfo
killall
sgmlfmt
whereis
which
adduser
kbdmap
spkrtest
I do think that Perl is a good choice for many of these, but on the
other hand, the shell or C or Awk is also possible without much
effort, since the number of perl scripts is very small.
Do these really warrant that perl4 (in the future perl5, which is much
bigger?) is part of the base OS?
--
______________________________________________________________________
Peter Mutsaers | Abcoude (Utrecht), | "Quod licet bovis,
plm@xs4all.nl | the Netherlands | non licet Jovi."
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?87enn6sbo1.fsf>