nomis80 at videotron.ca
Wed Jun 13 19:54:39 PDT 2001
On Wednesday 13 June 2001 6:50, Fabio Fracassi wrote:
> Hm, I don't quite agree, I think that building everything in C/C++ (or any
> othe non interpreted language) is a worth the extra effort, since it has
> some drawbacks. With Perl for example, the Perl interpreter has to be
> installed, and all the extensions we use, too. In case of a installation CD
> (or disk) we would have to provide it.
Yeah, so what? My perl is 780962 bytes big. Suppose that we miraculously code
enough to go up to a meg (perl scripts are very small). Then we just used
0.15384615385% of the available disk space. This goes without saying that
C/C++ binaries will be about as big.
> The C/C++ aproach would have the advantage that we have some executables
> which are small and work out of the box.
Perl scripts are much smaller than their C equivalent, this is not debatable.
But on a 650 meg CD, size is irrelevant, so this is not even an issue.
Simon Perreault -- Public key: http://nomis80.linuxfromscratch.org/nomis80.gpg
Unsubscribe: send email to alfs-discuss-request at linuxfromscratch.org
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss