On Nov 7, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Matthias Drochner wrote:

>
> prlw1@newn.cam.ac.uk said:
>> The above questions I think are rather an answer to why should we add
>> f77
>
> I'm not advocating against fortran, but since gcc also supports
> ada and java now, we need to draw a line somewhere. Which could be
> "we need it to build a program in the tree", leaving just c and c++.
> Or "the former, and everything which is lightweight", which would
> add objc and fortran.

I would like to see us keep at least ObjC and Fortran, both of which  
have been historically included with NetBSD.

> Having the ada support in the tree would be worthwhile
> because bootstrapping it is hard and it could benefit a lot from a
> reachover makefile structure. Don't know about the usefulness of
> gcc-java. Both would increase system build time significantly.

I can also see value in having Ada, for the reason you cite.   
Actually, it's tricker than this, though... because you need an Ada  
compiler to build the Ada compiler, this would make cross-building  
from non-NetBSD hosts more difficult (gotta bootstrap the Ada compiler  
there).

Gcj I would add just for completeness.

Basically, I would like us to be at the point where users can add  
"development environment" and "run-time" support for various languages  
easily as sets (or syspkgs or whatever), with the default C and C++  
run-time always being installed with the base system.

>
> best regards
> Matthias

-- thorpej