❦ 13 avril 2015 10:37 +0100, Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> : > I presume that we can agree that, if someone started offering a web > service compiling C code with output an order of magnitude better in > every dimension than gcc can achieve, we still wouldn't use it for our > binaries (at least not unless it were available as free software that we > could host ourselves). What makes JavaScript worthy of special > treatment? It is an interpreted language and "compiled" source can sometimes be considered as a pristine source too (for example, concatenation). > The situation with grunt seems (from my quick reading) to be that it is > currently non-free software, at least to the extent that it depends on > JSHint, which by derives from JSLint, from where it inherits the > non-free "no evil" license[1]. I don't think that Grunt requires JSHint. Grunt itself is useless without many many plugins. I suppose nobody packaged Grunt because one would also need to package a lot of plugins. Each of those plugins usually depends on many other stuff. Before being able to compile a single non-toy project using Grunt, I expect the need of at least 20 packages. -- In the Spring, I have counted 136 different kinds of weather inside of 24 hours. -- Mark Twain, on New England weather
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature