At 10:02 PM 8/5/00 -0500, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 05, 2000 at 07:25:41PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > libraries and tools are better than the vendor counterparts; Sun's
> > compilers and linkers are considerably better than GNU's for SPARC C code,
> > for example.
>
>Likewise for Digital/Compaq. gcc's Alpha code generation and optimization
>is really inferior.
Likewise for all platforms where gcc's not alone. It's not even better on
intel x86. I think it was the best on the motorola 88k platform, but only
because DG was using it as their core compiler for their AViiON line.
> > In short, while some of the ideas in this RFC have merit, I am absolutely
> > 100% opposed to the grand implications and its tone and would consider
> > this approach to be disasterous for Perl.
>
>100% agreed.
And I agree as well. Perl goes on merit and portability. Any library or
tool you care to name sucks in various profound ways. (I could rant for
quite some time about a large number of them, including gcc and glibc) I
don't see any point in tying ourselves to one particular set of tools, and
a lot of reasons to not.
>(I think this discussion should be in licencing?)
I'm not sure where it should be. In Larry's lap, I think, and tabled unless
he weighs in on it.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
