Much of this discussion (talking about MS-DOS, assembler code, etc.)
has no real place for debian developers. I've asked Bruce to say
something, and he told me to ask you all to please move this
discussion off the list. Please take it to private e-mail or
something for now.
Jim
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kai Henningsen writes:
>That's a problem, but it's not the problem I meant. For difficult to
>parse, well, compare these two lines:
> a =~ s/some/thing...
> b = c/d
>Very bad syntax design, that.
There's always s,some,thing, or s|some|thing| or whatever.
>Eit
> > I'm sure C and Assembler fit "cryptic" too. Just think how much further
> > advanced the computer industry would be if neither of those had ever been
> > invented.
>
> As to assembler, there are lots of _very_ different styles of writing it;
> there is no one "Assembler" language. It's quite
You (Dan Stromberg) wrote:
> Ian Jackson wrote:
> >
> > sh is not suitable for many of the things Perl gets used for -
> > consider update-inetd, update-info &c.
>
> Actually, a /bin/sh script to add inetd.conf entries, and another to
> remove entries keyed off the service field, was unmentionabl
Brian C. White wrote:
> Dan Stromberg wrote:
> > There's clearly a place for a stronger scripting language, despite the
> > argument posed above. It's just very sad that it should be perl. perl
> > really fits into many people's stereotypes of "unix as inherently
> > cryptic monster", very neatly
> > I'm sure C and Assembler fit "cryptic" too. Just think how much further
> > advanced the computer industry would be if neither of those had ever been
> > invented.
>
> And how much further would the industry be, if C had been typesafe (or
> if some other, typesafe language had been used)? Th
> that require munging large numbers of files in complex regexpish ways.
> I've found that if you use "-w", "use strict", and "use English", perl
> makes/allows you to write pretty reasonable code. Certainly code that
> is far better (and usually faster) than sh.
If "-w", "use strict" and "use E
Dan Stromberg wrote:
> > For this reason we decided that Perl would be on our base disks, and
> > that packages could use it (well, the subset that's on the base disks)
> > in their preinst/postrm. Packages which want something else must
> > Depend on it and may only use it in their postinst/prerm
Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> We only have room for one `extra' scripting language, besides the
> usual sh, awk, sed, &c, on the base disks.
>
> Perl is widely known. It can solve most problems. There are problems
> for which it is difficult to get it to work, but these don't often
> occur at installa
9 matches
Mail list logo
