On 16/08/2010, at 4:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Ivan Voras wrote: > >> This is my long-term point - it really would be beneficial to have an >> alternative, richer language in base which would fall between the >> categories of "a good system language but far too complex for simple >> string-parsing stuff" which is C and "a good glue language for system >> utilities but lacking more evolved concepts" which is shell. > > I sort of agree with you here, but I don't. :) ONE of the reasons that perl > was axed from the base was that it was very very hard to keep the bmake glue > up to date. However, a bigger reason was that it was impossible to marry our > concept of a "stable" branch with the ever-evolving world that was perl. We > often had a situation where a long-lived stable branch would have a VERY > stale version of perl in it, to the point that the only rational course of > action was to disable the perl build and install a usable version from ports. > We do not want to go back down that road. (And I'm not speculating here, I > lived through it.) >
And lest anyone think "that's just perl", look at the history of TCL in the base system as well. _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
