develooper Front page | perl.perl6.stdlib | Postings from September 2000

RE: RFC 260 (v1) More modules

Garrett Goebel
September 20, 2000 13:12
RE: RFC 260 (v1) More modules
Message ID:
From: Chaim Frenkel []
> From: Tom Christiansen <>
> >
> > Same answer: I won't do it because it's evil and
> > wrong.  I am vehemently and vociferously opposed to software that
> > is installed *ANYWHERE* without documentation.  If there is no
> > documentation, there is no decent software, just pain-in-the-ass
> > crapware.
> So we shouldn't install Perl on a Palm since the documentation
> wouldn't fit?
> You are being a bit fascist here.

Are we all on the same page here? Are we talking about allowing tools to
strip documentation from a distribution? Standalone documenation or
stripping pod from source files?

I believe we'd all stand in a line and agree that supplying Perl without
documentation is in General a bad thing. On the other hand, it isn't a
religious conflict. If someone wanted to ship a Perl distribution without
any documentation whatsoever, there's nothing stopping them... well except
to find someone who'd want it. Any discussion to the contrary should
probably move on to the Artistic license thread.

Perl on systems with limited resources, on the other hand is an obvious case
for letting the coder trim Perl down to suit the resource limitations. I
don't believe, let them eat cake, or use Python for that matter... is a
reasonable argument. The "we don't want their type" arguments are such a
waste of time.

Let's provide the tools and if they are abused, so what?  Which is more
important enabling people to do things with Perl, or keeping them from it?

I'd rather be able to easily do Perl on a floppy or in 2MB RAM, than not
have it at all... Which is currently the case, unless you go back to
documentation stripped Perl 5.004.

Garrett Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About