❦ 13 avril 2015 10:37 +0100, Philip Hands <[email protected]> : > I presume that we can agree that, if someone started offering a web > service compiling C code with output an order of magnitude better in > every dimension than gcc can achieve, we still wouldn't use it for our > binaries (at least not unless it were available as free software that we > could host ourselves). What makes JavaScript worthy of special > treatment?
It is an interpreted language and "compiled" source can sometimes be
considered as a pristine source too (for example, concatenation).
> The situation with grunt seems (from my quick reading) to be that it is
> currently non-free software, at least to the extent that it depends on
> JSHint, which by derives from JSLint, from where it inherits the
> non-free "no evil" license[1].
I don't think that Grunt requires JSHint.
Grunt itself is useless without many many plugins. I suppose nobody
packaged Grunt because one would also need to package a lot of
plugins. Each of those plugins usually depends on many other
stuff. Before being able to compile a single non-toy project using
Grunt, I expect the need of at least 20 packages.
--
In the Spring, I have counted 136 different kinds of weather inside of
24 hours.
-- Mark Twain, on New England weather
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
