Re: new sysinstall

[Robert Garrett <rg70@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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
> perl.
> 
> 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
make release?

Rob