home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!psuvax1!atlantis.psu.edu!barr
- From: barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr)
- Subject: Re: Octal chmod status
- Message-ID: <fpf1H?!149@atlantis.psu.edu>
- Sender: news@atlantis.psu.edu (Usenet)
- Organization: Penn State Population Research Institute
- References: <Bt7t36.1w3@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> <1992Aug19.130558.8488@news.eng.convex.com> <1992Aug20.161528.13941@shell.shell.com>
- Distribution: na
- Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 23:15:32 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <1992Aug20.161528.13941@shell.shell.com> rgh@pern (Richard G. Hash) writes:
- >This tends to ignore how long it takes you to compile and install
- >perl on every machine you want *it* to run on...
-
- Yes, but the point is you do it _once_ and forget about it.
-
- >Let's see, I have to worry about sun{3,4}, hp9000s{3,7,8}00, dec3100,
- >Cray YMP, Ncube, RS6000, Apollo, Amhdahl UTS, VAX (Ultrix), and I'm
- >sure there's some others I can't recall right now. Yup, use 'em all, all
- >the time. Gee Tom, if you could just ship me some ready-to-install
- >perl distributions for ALL those machines I'll being using it tomorrow.
-
- Have you even tried to compile it on half of these machines? So you're
- trying to say that it's easier for you to write one C solution for all
- those machines than it is for Perl? Personally, I've found Perl to be
- one of the easiest packages to compile, especially on odd machines.
-
- >Face it, perl isn't everywhere (though I would like for it to be),
- >and it's not *always* the answer to everything.
-
- True, but it's a lot easier to write a portable Perl script than it
- is to write a portable C program, agreed? This becomes even more true
- as the complexity of the program increases.
-
- --Dave
- --
- System Administrator, Population Research Institute barr@pop.psu.edu
- "An analogy is like instant coffee: it can wake you up, but it's
- not the real thing" -- Peter da Silva
-