Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:17:43 +0100, Josselin Mouette <email@example.com> said:
> Le samedi 21 janvier 2006 à 01:48 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit
>> Granted if it is a real issue, then why not use perl? Yes, I hate
>> perl too, but really, the argument "hey, people like Python too"
>> implies that we should have a scheme interpreter, a perl, a python,
>> emacs lisp, and well, everything anyone might want.
> Or we can accept python for the same reasons that perl was accepted:
> it is suitable, enough people like to write scripts in it, and many
> people expect to be able to use it.
We needed _a_ high level language. We have one. There is no
need to bloat essential package lists by adding everybodies favourite
language du jour.
> Sorry, but there's a whole new generation of Debian developers here
> that simply won't develop anything in perl, just because perl looks
> too complex and cryptic to us.
I see. I am not sure how I can respond to this without seeming
to be insulting. We are trying to build the best OS out there, and
ifone of the most popular glue languages is too abstruse for people,
perhaps they should, umm, reconsider their qualifications?
> Now, with bash, perl and python, we can deal with the scripting
> needs for at least a few releases; trying to anticipate what will
> happen later is pure speculation.
Heck no. We definitely need ruby, for the whole OO thang that
python messed up ;). And while we are talking OO, how about a teensy
Or how about some haskell, so we can _prove_ maintainer
scripts are correct? I mean, surely we can make a strong case for
haskell, which is a different kinda beast than procedural languages.
Or Scheme. Oooh, scheme.
Like punning, programming is a play on words.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C