Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Perl make depend made faster (fwd) | Date | Wed, 18 Sep 1996 11:18:57 +0200 | From | Herbert Wengatz <> |
| |
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.
|  |