rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) (01/22/91)
In ALMOST EVERY article tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: >"Hey, did you hear Stallman has replaced /vmunix with /vmunix.el? Now > he can finally have the whole O/S built-in to his editor like he > always wanted!" --me (Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.com>) I hope these jabs are with affection. As I see it, perl and emacs are quite similar; they are kitchen sinks, able to do everything. Hell, perl is already half as big as emacs. As I see it, people who use either are bold adventurers, not merely content to use what software they've been handed. Half the code I carry from place to place is Larry's, the other half is GNU. Interpreted environments are superior to compiled ones in everything but speed. Hey, didja hear Wallman has replaced /vmunix with vmunix.pl? Hey Larry, when are you gonna start the WNU project? -- Root Boy Jim Cottrell <rbj@uunet.uu.net> Close the gap of the dark year in between
phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) (01/22/91)
rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) writes: >Hell, perl is already half as big as emacs. I don't know if I would say that. -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 1706316 Jan 26 1990 /usr/local/bin/emacs -rwxr-xr-x 2 root 319265 Jan 16 06:20 /usr/local/bin/perl The above are on a Sequent S81. >Interpreted environments are superior to compiled ones >in everything but speed. Especially in portability. -- --Phil Howard, KA9WGN-- | Individual CHOICE is fundamental to a free society <phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> | no matter what the particular issue is all about.
rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) (01/22/91)
In article <1991Jan22.001456.24237@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) writes: >rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) writes: > >>Hell, perl is already half as big as emacs. > >I don't know if I would say that. > >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root 1706316 Jan 26 1990 /usr/local/bin/emacs >-rwxr-xr-x 2 root 319265 Jan 16 06:20 /usr/local/bin/perl > >The above are on a Sequent S81. I just installed 18.56 today. Perhaps your emacs is not stripped and/or perhaps you built yours for X11 or suntools? Or you loaded more? Our perl is 3.044. Our S81 runs Dynix 3.0.17.9. My stats are: ls -lsg /usr/local/bin/{emacs,perl} 640 -rwxr-xr-x 1 rbj sysadm 643072 Jan 22 00:15 /usr/local/bin/emacs 368 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root sysadm 365075 Dec 4 14:27 /usr/local/bin/perl For comparison: ls -lsg /dynix 668 -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 677285 Jan 7 14:34 /dynix -- Root Boy Jim Cottrell <rbj@uunet.uu.net> Close the gap of the dark year in between
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (01/23/91)
As quoted from <1991Jan22.001456.24237@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> by phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN): +--------------- | rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) writes: | >Hell, perl is already half as big as emacs. | | -rwxr-xr-x 1 root 1706316 Jan 26 1990 /usr/local/bin/emacs | -rwxr-xr-x 2 root 319265 Jan 16 06:20 /usr/local/bin/perl | | The above are on a Sequent S81. +--------------- Under System V, strip(1)'ing xemacs shrinks it by over half --- and you might as well do it if gdb doesn't work on your system, because sdb can't handle it. (An artifact of unexec, I believe --- COFF auxents are dumped incorrectly.) In any case, on telotech xemacs is indeed slightly over twice the size of perl, although I admit that while xemacs is stripped, perl is not. (Quick note for those who wonder: "xemacs" is not emacs for X, it is the name of the dumped emacs with pre-loaded Lisp code. The "bare" emacs without Lisp code in it is "temacs".) ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
mike@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Mike Haertel) (01/23/91)
In article <119431@uunet.UU.NET> rbj@uunet.UU.NET (Root Boy Jim) writes: >Hell, perl is already half as big as emacs. Bigger than that even, if you compare perl to the 'temacs' program containing no dumped lisp code. I wonder if some people with undumped perl executables would care to comment on their size? :-) And frankly, I'm just waiting to see someone take advantage of the usub stuff and write 'pmacs'... (or would that be 'eperl'? :-) >Hey, didja hear Wallman has replaced /vmunix with vmunix.pl? >Hey Larry, when are you gonna start the WNU project? Maybe it's time to put uperl.o in the shared library? :-) -- Mike Haertel <mike@stolaf.edu> "He's a tie with the ambition to become a full-blown suit." -- Jon Westbrock
hansm@cs.kun.nl (Hans Mulder) (01/23/91)
In article <1991Jan21.194252.19124@convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: > > print reverse foo('bar'); > >says "bar", whereas > > print foo('bar'); > >says syntax error, as it (to my understanding) rightly should. >Why should the reverse make a difference? All list operators take an optional extra argument, separated from the list by optional whitespace. Print interprets this argument as a filehandle, sort takes it to be the sorting function. Reverse doesn't really know what to do with it, but doesn't complain either. Other list operators that ignore the optional extra argument are chmod, chown, kill, unlink, utime, die and return. Maybe the parser should be informed that list operators come in two kinds: those that use the extra argument, and those that don't. -- sub s { return Not yet, another, perl, hacker; } @s=&s; print "@s,\n"; Hans Mulder hansm@cs.kun.nl