Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 15:14:49 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> To: kientzle@acm.org Cc: libh@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BOF at BSDCon: FreeBSD Installer, Packages System Message-ID: <10351.972339289@winston.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Message from Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> of "Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:40:43 PDT." <39F4A24B.F421AF5B@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> My impression is that most of the "off-the-shelf" script languages > (Python, Perl, Tcl, etc, etc) started off small but have since > become quite bloated. I just compiled a short C program (given below) Some are more bloated than others (let's not even talk about PERL) but we can still manage it. > with an embedded Tcl interpreter and got a 530k stripped executable. > Is that acceptable for sysinstall? Well, the current one is 820K stripped (separate, not with all the other crunched stuff) so I'd say just being able to separate large chunks of its current functionality into separate-to-the-executable scripts will win well beyond that, even starting at 530k and adding back some of the media handling stuff necessary to go find an install script and start it up. > <ROFL> ... Apparently, another hard sell. ;-) I was thinking, > of course, of the more modern structured BASIC implementations > (Visual Basic is the best-known) which draw heavily on Pascal and C. > (Perl is heavily influenced by structured Basic, for example.) Be honest: Do you really want to have to write something like this as a prerequisite to even starting the new installation program? I think we want to steal technology rather than implement it as much as possible or we'll never get this item off our TODO lists. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?10351.972339289>