Re: [Administrivia] On ruby and contrib/

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 6, 2013, 13:01 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s0M5tsN+zYoa_HC+8SLqyvDUBi_wuiOGyQWo0XWbWXC-A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <m3d2rz5svw.fsf@barry_fishman.acm.org>

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:24 AM, Barry Fishman <barry_fishman@acm.org> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

>
> On 2013-06-06 03:46:59 EDT, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:26 AM, demerphq <demerphq@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Good thing you are being objective and leaving out the Python 3.0
>>> mess, the long legacy of backwards compatibility in the Perl
>>> community, the active community behind it, its extensive portability
>>> support, and fail to mention the lack of an equivalent to CPAN. We
>>> wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a personal bias would we?
>>
>> None of that has anything to do with Perl's popularity.
>>
>>> Just thought I'd push back on the FUD. People have been saying Perl is
>>> going away for decades...
>>
>> Perl has been going away for the last decade [1], and will continue to
>> go away. Perl is going away, and that an undeniable fact, and if you
>> are not interested in discussing on the basis of reality, I'm not
>> interested in discussing with you.
>>
>> [1] http://www.tiobe.com/content/paperinfo/tpci/images/tpci_trends.png
>
> I don't think the usefulness of a language should be judged by hits on a
> web site.

Nobody is judging the usefulness of a language, I have plenty of arguments for that, but this is about popularity.

> Personally I would like the Git client to be packaged with as few
> dependencies as possible.  Right now that seems to require Shell, Sed,
> Awk and Perl.  The documentation has other requirements, but a prebuild
> tar file is available.

I would be perfectly fine with replacing shell, sed, awk and perl with ruby. But that's not what you are arguing, is it?

-- 
Felipe Contreras