now i know why we haven't heard of you for some time: you have
been very busy... ;-)
On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 04:37:47PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I'm aware of the problem :-). Python programs can be compiled to
> portable C sources using the `freeze' tool. The translation is
So we are back a C sources. Let me ask you one thing: why not simply
use ISO-C and be done with it? There are excelllent tools like yacc
and lex for building parsers, why don't you use them to generate C
code instead on an obscure script language. I know you really like
Python, but face it: 90% of the folks on this list probaly don't.
> Even if this weren't true, we'd be trading dependencies and not adding
> one. The Perl stuff in the scripts directory will go away shortly
> (that is, assuming that Linus approves the CML1->CML2 change). This
> would be a net gain in kernel autonomy, as Perl *can't* be compiled away.
Let me put it that way: the only dependancies the kernel sources should
have are GNU-make, GNU-binutils, GNU-C and the standard Unix tools (sed,
awk, sh, ...). Both perl and python do not belong into any of these
categories and should not be used. The perl dependency is not critical
at the moment, because you can build a kernel without using these tools,
but it should be removed ASAP. Remember that we had ksymoops rewritten
to remove the C++ dependancy?
I really don't like the added complexity. IMHO we should ditch our current
config scheme in favour of the BSD tools if at all: They are written in
C, they are simple to use and they have a proven track record. What more
is there to ask?
-- Networking Group, Hospital of Johannes Gutenberg-University Obere Zahlbacher Straße 69, 55101 Mainz, Germany Tel: +49 (0)6131 17-2482 FAX: +49 (0)6131 17-5521
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:12 EST