DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-09
Re: new sysinstall
Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:
> -On [20030901 11:22], Ben Laurie (ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
>>I've never touched Ruby, so no opinion there. Hmmm, is there no
>>light-weight rigorous scripting language? Is Ruby it, perhaps?
> Mmm. I wouldn't count Ruby as a light-weight scripting language.
> Although you can do very powerful things with it in a few lines. At
> least it is true OO in its idealogy and doesn't pretend to be, e.g. like
> I've done too little Python yet to comment on that, but one of my
> personal pet peeves with it was the forcing of whitespace to be
> essential to the flow of the code. (*awaits rabid Python lovers to
> attack him now*) From what I know Python can do nice things as easily
> as Ruby can, for example.
> Lately I've been looking at Pike as well. Kind of a cross between OO
> concepts and C. I think this is very interesting since most people here
> know C and some OO concepts are not lost on them either. So it gives
> you kind of the best of both worlds perhaps.
> OTOH, maybe Objective C is interesting as well in this aspect.
> But then again, isn't this whole thread perhaps overengineering the
> installation idea?
> I mean, people are complaining about a base blessed language. But who
> says it is part of the base? I do not entirely understand why this has
> to be a prerequisite.
> If you are tracking CVS then you could make language X a prerequisite if
> a person wants to rebuild the configuration tool. This solves the base
> language issue since a person would need to install it from ports.
oh hell we could even see if it's installed and if it's not help them
out, you are aware of the number of ports that get installed for a full