"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
>
> James Sutherland <jas88@cam.ac.uk>:
> > > 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.
> >
> > perlcc?
>
> Is, I'm told, a kluge much like the freeze tool. You can compile away
> control structure but you end up carrying around most of Perl as
> runtime support.
It statically links in libperl.a and behaves similar to writing a C
program that desires to use Perl's features. The down side is that if
you rely on Perl modules, you need to include them with the binary as
they are not compiled in. And why would you want to compile it away
anyways? I can't even think of a Linux distribution that doesn't include
it, and many require it.
But I have to ask, what's wrong with Perl for this? It's a well known,
fast, and flexible tool that allows rapid development and change. Seems
quite appropriate for this sort of effort.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:15 EST