lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1996]   [Sep]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Perl make depend made faster (fwd)
Date
From
On 17 Sep 1996, Philip Blundell wrote:
+> On 17 Sep 1996, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
+>
+> > Good LORD! This is the most ridiculous post I've ever seen. You're
+> > basically saying that everyone should use a slower, inferior piece of
+> > software (awk) just because you happen to not like its replacement?
+> > Grow up!
+>
+> He's right in as much as it's a pain if the kernel starts to depend on
+> more and more arbitrary bits of software that not everybody may have
+> installed, and of which there are lots of incompatible versions out there.

Well. All perl5 versions are quite good compatible. Even most perl4 scripts
should run without change under perl5. - OK. There are some things under perl5
which won't run under perl4, but nobody would really expect this. And if you
would really want to try hard to write a version which is running under both,
it should be possible. So there's no real need to complain about "incompatible
versions" in perl.

There are far more _different_ C-Compilers around, than there are perl-Versions,
and they (the compilers) are in most cases far more incompatible than the
perl-versions! - You may think about how difficult it is to write a really
_portable_ C-program !

+> For example, I expect a lot of people would complain quite loudly if "make
+> config" and Menuconfig were removed because "xconfig is the way forward".
+> That may be true, but not everybody wants to install Tcl/Tk (and in some
+> cases X) just to configure a kernel. I know that's a slightly more
+> extreme case than the perl/awk thing, but the idea is the same.

You are right. *THIS* (the "make xconfig" being the sole possibility) should
NOT happen. - But why not create a new "make" entry: "make perldep", which
is maintained by the author of the perl-depend ?

Those of us with slower machines will _love_ you for this, and: since when does
the Linux-Developement-Group decide in favour of the technological _worser_
solution ? - The perl "make depend" is obviously faster! :-))))

And I personally know NOBODY (!) who doesn't install perl onto his Linux-Box.
If you would ever try perl instead of writing shell- awk- or sed-scripts,
you would very soon realize how mighty perl *really* is.- And how fast, compared
to the above mentioned.

I for myself would rather kick out awk, grep and sed, than kicking out perl!

And BTW, Linux is the only operating System I know of, which managed it within
one year to grow to the double of it's original size. - And becoming twice as
fast at the same time !!!! :-))))) So all Linuxers _often_ do decide in favour
of speed! - Which you would do, when turning to perl.

+> I suspect the original poster wasn't necessarily demanding that a
+> (fictitious, apparently) perl "make depend" not be added, but requesting
+> that it be an _addition_ rather than a replacement so that those who want
+> to use it can, and he doesn't have to. Which is a perfectly valid thing
+> to ask for.

I support this, too.

+> > Besides, the point is moot anyway, since Linus did it in C.
+> Indeed.

*Sigh*



Regards,

Herbert


_____________________________________________________________________
Herbert Wengatz, 81375 Munich |Disclaim: This Mail is my own opinion,
Office :hwe@uebemc.siemens.de |not that of my company.
Private:hwe@rtfact.muc.de | http://www.muc.de/~hwe/rtfact
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
-- Arthur C. Clarke, The Lost Worlds of 2001
"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from a good perl-
script" -- Me, here and now.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.134 / U:2.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site