Subject: Re: Packages for NetBSD (Was: Why are there two 4.4BSD dev. groups)
To: Eric Hvozda - API <email@example.com>
From: Ted Lemon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/09/1995 09:49:53
I buy your point about tcsh. I still think it should be shipped by
default - it can be configured so that its default configuration looks
exactly like csh yet tcsh weenies can make it look the way they want.
But you can certainly argue that the extra memory shouldn't be wasted.
On the other hand, you can't make that argument for perl. There's a
good, solid reason for wanting perl in the base distributiun: if it's
there, I can use it to write install scripts. If it's not, I can't.
I've heard other people talk about awk, sed, et al, and how we can do
anything with those that we can in perl. That's true, but the fact
is that we *won't*. At least, I won't. I have better things to do
than write long programs in Bourne shell. The whole point of perl is
that you don't have to glue three different languages with different
syntaxes together through pipes to get anything accomplished. This is
a large and measurable win.
Ted Lemon email@example.com
+1 415 477 5045
Fight to preserve your freedom to program: Join the League for
Programming Freedom! For info, contact firstname.lastname@example.org.