On Mon, Oct 06, 2003 at 05:42:05PM -0400, John Belmonte wrote: > Gunnar Wolf wrote: > >Because of how powerful is Perl? Because of the amount of things that > >depend on Perl that currently exist and would be a waste of time to > >rewrite? Because Perl might be the best tool for many cases? There are > >many possible answers... > > > >Not that coding in Lua, scsh or similar tools is bad. Not that the > >regular shells are not up to the task in many cases. Simply that... Perl > >seems to be such a powerful language that people would end up installing > >it anyway - And if you have an optional package installed in 95% of the > >machines, then you have something I would like calling 'base'. > > Excuse me, but I'm not arguing Lua vs. Perl, or tiny languages vs. Perl. > Rather I'm challenging Colin Watson's statement, "Take away Perl and > you've got only shell, C, and C++ left".
You haven't challenged it successfully, then; to my knowledge, my statement is correct for the current base system, which is what it was referring to. I don't necessarily oppose tiny languages such as Lua, but perhaps somebody should write the tools in question in them first, otherwise this is pure vapourware. (Or, then again, perhaps they shouldn't; I'm not a fan of rewriting things that already work.) Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
