Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:53:27 +1030 (CST)
From:      Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
To:        nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams)
Cc:        msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, nate@mt.sri.com, gclarkii@main.gbdata.com, hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Who needs Perl? We do!
Message-ID:  <199611220123.LAA16082@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
In-Reply-To: <199611220107.SAA13545@rocky.mt.sri.com> from Nate Williams at "Nov 21, 96 06:07:08 pm"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams stands accused of saying:
> > 
> > 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

Sure.  Right now I'm taking gripes from my employer, my SO and the DOS
emulation people for the time I'm spending on my part; I don't
plan on wasting all that angst.

> 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'.

That is _exactly_ what this thread has been about; ref. my original
post.  In my opinion, the usefulness of Perl in the base system
outweighs the 'bloat' consideration.  I'm aware that bloat is an issue
of religious importance to some people, and I've been trying to
encourage one of these people (that isn't as overloaded as the rest of
us 8) to do something constructive about it without alienating the
"comfortable system" people by telling them to go pick a pile of
ports.

> 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.

That's all well and good, but it presents a chicken-and-egg situation
for anyone trying to work outside the decades-old BSD model.  You may
not consider this a problem; I do.  Opinions differ.

> 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.

I get this really sinking feeling around that whole concept.  It's like
there's a little stack of yellowing 15x11 half-blue tractor-feed somewhere
with the Unix Commandments in faded courier on it, and that it exerts
this Powerful Force over all those that have read it, hardening their
hearts against anything not thought of at least ten years ago.

Maybe that as it should be; I just beg to differ.

> Nate

-- 
]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer        msmith@gsoft.com.au             [[
]] Genesis Software                     genesis@gsoft.com.au            [[
]] High-speed data acquisition and      (GSM mobile)     0411-222-496   [[
]] realtime instrument control.         (ph)          +61-8-8267-3493   [[
]] Unix hardware collector.             "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick  [[



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199611220123.LAA16082>