Interpreted language(s) in the base

[Doug Barton]

On 08/16/2010 00:47, sthaug at nethelp.no wrote:
> If I only wanted a kernel and everything else as installable packages,
> I might as well use one of the Linux distributions.

That wasn't at all what I said, or what I was suggesting. There is a 
middle ground between "everything is a package" and the status quo. The 
fact that people keep asking for more things to be in the base that 
clearly don't/can't belong there is evidence of this.

Meanwhile, to respond more or less generally to some of the specific 
responses I received:

1. My descriptions of the various possible things to import were meant 
to be tongue-in-cheek, not exhaustive technical reviews of the 
alternatives. The fact that some people "bit" on those, particularly the 
ones that described rabid user communities, is, well, funny. :)

2. phk's description of the the situation with tcl is both more eloquent 
and more complete than I could have come up with, which is why I didn't 
mention it in my previous post. Although the situation with perl is more 
vivid for me since I was directly affected by it my recollections of the 
tcl thing match his description, and more importantly I agree with him 
that it should be viewed as a cautionary tale.

3. In case I wasn't clear in my last post the correct answer at this 
time is neither "import more stuff into the base" nor "turn more things 
into packages." It's "write good apps using the tool(s) of your own 
choosing and we'll find a way to make it work."


Doug

-- 

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/

	Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
			-- Pablo Picasso