From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: Greg Shubin Message-ID: <3A099697.4BCC40E8@sonic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <1971527636@snellwilcox.com>, <00c501c04980$d6e8dac0$0ab9c6d4@cybercable.fr> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Perl5 & kenji arisawa's perl question Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 18:13:03 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 244812dc-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Boyd Roberts wrote: > From: George Michaelson > > > boyd@planete.net (Boyd Roberts) writes: > > > > >gotta be a better idea than the perl port :-) > > > > but would you of neccessity say the same thing of a python port? or > > a tcl port? seems like it might be better to be explicit about > > criticizing a language, not the idea of porting language(s) per se. > > > > i'm criticising the language, not languages. perl is an abortion; > it is unreadable, the grammar is ghastly and it violates the 'tools' > approach. > > i understand why sysadmins like it. i just won't use it, > although i have bug-fixed it. > > i would also object to csh, sendmail, vi, *rn, readnews, X > and various other pieces of unix trash being ported to plan 9. > it's plan 9, if you want unix, you know where to find it. As a Plan 9 newbie, that's one of the things that I don't quite get. On one hand it seems that the "official" position is Plan 9 contains everything you need. But then I see everyone porting their favorite tools to it. As you point out, pretty soon it will have as much bloat as Un*x. Is there an official position on what should and shouldn't be ported? (Personally I like the features of bash (completion, history using arrow keys, emacs command editing, etc). ) At the risk of escalating language flame wars, what's your opinion of (wait a second, let me get into my bomb shelter) C++?