Date: Tue, 14 May 1996 11:40:16 +0930 (CST) From: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> To: jmacd@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Josh MacDonald) Cc: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: version of makeinfo in -current Message-ID: <199605140210.LAA21359@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> In-Reply-To: <199605140012.RAA22477@paris.CS.Berkeley.EDU> from "Josh MacDonald" at May 13, 96 05:12:08 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Josh MacDonald stands accused of saying: > > > > > (This is why people just ignore the endless "when will you be upgrading > > to gcc 2.7.x" - there are bugs in 2.7.x that the FSF have said won't > > be fixed until 2.8.0, and the work and stress involved would be substantial.) > > This is silly, the same argument applies to the 2.6 -> 2.7 transition. > 2.8 will have bugs too, but for some of us, there are BIG differences, > especially when you try to use g++. *shrug* If you have a major stake in c++, then perhaps it behooves you to spend some time bmaking 2.7.2. Then you can spend the time required to purge the tree of things that don't work under either 2.6.3 or 2.7.2. I haven't tried; this may be a fairly minor task. But don't make the mistake of saying "this is silly" to "it works, don't 'fix' it". > are already upgraded), binutils, etc. The reason new versions get released > is because there are new features and/or bugs fixed. If there wasn't, > then there would be no reason for new versions, would there? People ... or the author has decided that they didn't like the way xyz was done and so they've changed it all. "With the new version, you'll have to modify any of your code that does <blah>". Ever read that sort of thing before? 8) > who use these utilities find those bugs, and each time they install a > new FreeBSD system, they say to themselves, damn, now I have to download > 14 packages off of prep.ai.mit.edu and compile the latest version. Who says the 'latest' anything is required? Why are you selling out to the whole "it's newer, it must be better" philosophy? > I can contribute time for these types of things in a week or so when > finals are over, but I hate both perl and tcl, don't know how to > program either, and this makes bmaking things sort of a pain in the > butt. I should write a bmakeifier in elisp, a real language. Now that really characterises you more than anything else you've said so far. "I don't know them, and I hate them". What sort of ignorant crud is that? How can you 'hate' a language you've never had to work with? Or are you just following the jovian pronouncements of your glorious spiritual leader? Elisp is a scripting lanugage for a text editor. Perl and Tcl are general-purpose scripting languages. All three work fairly well, but I'll stack my 270K Tcl interpreter against your 2.5M emacs any day. Having worked with all three, it's perhaps telling that I chose Tcl to build an embedded product around. ... not that I can see why elisp, perl or Tcl have any bearing on bmaking something. You want to write a Makefile. -- ]] Mike Smith, Software Engineer msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] Genesis Software genesis@atrad.adelaide.edu.au [[ ]] High-speed data acquisition and (GSM mobile) 0411-222-496 [[ ]] realtime instrument control (ph/fax) +61-8-267-3039 [[ ]] Collector of old Unix hardware. "Where are your PEZ?" The Tick [[
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605140210.LAA21359>