Re: Perl vs Python vs ....

1996-08-04 Thread James A. Robinson
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

Re: Perl vs Python vs ....

1996-08-03 Thread Michael Alan Dorman
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. Either

Re: Perl vs Python vs ....

1996-08-02 Thread Brian C. White
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.

Re: Perl vs Python vs ....

1996-08-02 Thread Brian C. White
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)? The

Re: Perl vs Python vs ....

1996-08-02 Thread Dan Stromberg
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

Re: Perl vs Python vs ....

1996-08-02 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
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 unmentionably simple

Re: Perl vs Python vs ....

1996-08-02 Thread Brian C. White
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 impossible

Re: Perl vs Python vs ....

1996-08-01 Thread Dan Stromberg
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 installation