Re: when and why did python(-minimal) become essential?
Josselin Mouette <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> If a good number of scripts that would be worth including in the base
> system were written in haskell or scheme, I would be the first one to
> support that inclusion.
Which scripts written in Python do you feel should be included in the base
system and cannot be currently because Python isn't included? Be
A killer application that everyone wants to have in base will be the way
that Python would enter base; without that, I think this discussion is
largely a waste of time and an invitation to back into argumentative
corners that can only result in hurt feelings. Personally, I write both
Perl and Python, and if some fantastic core component of Debian ended up
being written in Objective CAML, I think that would be a great excuse to
learn Objective CAML. But bickering over which language is best isn't
going to get us anywhere.
There's a pure resource tradeoff involved, and any language, including
Perl, has to pass a cost/benefit analysis that involves real applications
we want to run in base. Obviously, once the language is already in base
and is already being used, the cost/benefit analysis reverses and one
instead starts looking at the cost of removing it. The inherent merits of
the language rarely end up being a decisive factor.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>