Subject: Re: Package discussion.
To: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
From: Ted Lemon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/11/1995 13:35:42
> IMHO, if you have *basic* system stuff to accomplish, then it should be
> written with *basic* system tools (i.e. C code or /bin/sh scripts), and
> you should *not* rely on big, complex, changing, tools like perl.
You're right. How could I have been so stupid. Why don't we just
write everything in assembler? That's pretty basic, and doesn't
change much at all. Perl 4.036 has only been around and unpatched for
about two years now, so it's clearly not reliable.
I've seen a lot of people give a lot of anecdotal evidence for how
Perl is the wrong tool to use, and I've seen a lot of people throw up
their hands and say that they don't want to be bothered learning it
and don't think it's worth much. Frankly, guys, these arguments
don't wash unless those people who don't want to use Perl are the same
people who are going to be writing all the install scripts.
A couple of us discussed this over beer last night, and the best two
arguments (IMHO) that came up for why not include perl were: (1)
There's only 100k left on the disks now and that ain't enough, and (2)
the person who wrote the existing install software is Chris, and he's
not a Perl programmer, so why are we arguing about this when nobody
who wants to use perl is currently coding install scripts.
I think that under the circumstances, we should table the issue.
Later on, if somebody comes up with a way to fit Perl on the disks
*and* somebody starts writing install software in Perl, we can reopen
the discussion. For now, I think the horse has been beaten into
hamburger and there's no point in continuing to talk about it.
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.