You're speaking like you're using some OS in which, during runtime,
the code of that software written with a scripting language
is passed through a dispatcher that recalls namespace sessions
and, then, to a limited number of scripting interpreters loaded
and daemonised in memory when available for executing code,
without seeing an interpreter for every process spawned
by every scripted program, which is what happens on my uglybuntu
with programs written with scripting languages.
Although it's true that it's a waste of data downloading the
whole damn language everytime you need the ultimate geek
hipsterish idea put down on iPad during a pause spent taking a
sh*t... But an interpreter is a parser and some modules
dynamically loaded, most of the time with scripting langs, so
dunno, when deploying a package nobody impedes a distro community
to deploy a JIT compiler that loads some of the modules during
compilation. Or saying f*ck the whole script idea and rewrite
the whole thing in C/Go/Pascal/Ada/whatever you like to compile.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 06:45:22AM +0200, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 04:08:59PM +0200, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Unfortunately, libquvi on gentoo expects a system
> > installed lua (with additional modules).
> >
> > I don't want this high level script language as a system
> > dependency. I would prefer lua being packaged internally into
> > libquvi. Coze I would like to quit gentoo one day and have my own
> > suckless-ish distro, then better do the work now. I don't want
> > system wide installed
> > perl/python/ruby/php/lua/guile/javascript... (holy m****
> > f*****!), I would rather try to have applications package their
> > high level script language and don't try to f*** it up our
> > "system" throat. (and tell the script kiddies: "no, you FOO
> > script language is not installed, and won't be. Then package your
> > bloody f****** kludge with your app")
> >
>
> Why would you do this? It's bloody idiotic, if you think about it. It
> would be like having all C programs ship their own libc. Have you seen
> how big perl is? Do you really want to have two perl installations just
> because two different programs use it?
>
> That, in my opinion was always the major benefit of Linux over Windows:
> On Linux you have system wide package managers. That means each software
> package can be as small as possible and only pull external dependencies.
> On Windows, no such thing exists. If a program needs a lib, it has to
> ship that lib. If you have 50 programs using that lib, on Linux you have
> that lib once, on Windows you have it 50 times. Which way is better? And
> scripting languages are not fundamentally different!
>
> Ciao,
> Markus
>
--
Teodoro Santoni
Received on Sat May 17 2014 - 16:14:21 CEST