> But as I said, this is not to argument about Go developers' choices: > they do as they see fit
I think their philosophy is sound, not just an arbitrary choice. The alternative is a commitment that can only be fulfilled by applying resources best utilised on the focal issue. For example, the kerTeX installation relies on an ftp client that accepts a URL on the command line. My UBUNTU installation has no such ftp command. That leaves you with the choice between driving the more conventional ftp program with a small script (not nice, but it can be done) or require (as you do for LEX and YACC) that wget be installed everywhere, not just where ftp isn't of the neat BSD variety. It's a choice you make on behalf of the user and you can be sure that a significant portion of your target market would prefer the opposite. A very small portion will also stand up and criticise you if you go the wget rule, whereas it is much harder to challenge the use of ftp with a script. However, of the two, wget is more robust. That's the way it is. Sometimes one has the luxury of doing things properly, sometimes it is more critical to arrive at a result first. A healthy ethos would encourage tidying up behind one, but the costs are seldom justified in the present development climate. Future conditions may be different and perhaps we can then all feel justified in chipping in to tidy up behind our less tidy pioneers. ++L
