🚀 go-pugleaf

In gnu.misc.discuss, 
    jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck) writes:
:
:tchrist@mox.Perl.com (Tom Christiansen) writes:
:>[Re: gawk]
:>Let me preface this with stating that I entirely agree that the world
:>needed a freely redistributable version of awk that was a proper superset
:>of everything in the nawk book.  But beyond that, this is all just feeping
:>creaturism with a mind of its own.  Why did you have to keep adding more
:>bells and whistles?  Now people are writing programs in the "gawk"
:>language.  We didn't need a different dialect.  There should have been one
:>awk: in these days, I guess that would be the POSIX awk.
:
:I agree.  And your comments are generally right on.  But one of them
:is silly:

I was merely trying to take every point listed there, irrespective of its
own individual merit.  The person who ragged on me for mentioning the
refguide also missed this metapoint, which was that very nearly all the
points were already done in perl, not that each one stood out on its own.

:(BTW, I was stunned and amused by Larry Wall's Configure ten years ago,
:but now I find the chatty dialogs overly verbose and cute.  The
:autoconf-generated scripts have definite advantages).

Like?  Not having to answer questions?  You *did* read the docs explaining
about Configure -d, right?

As far as I understand these matters, what it comes down to is that if
you're on a known system, metaconfig produced Configure scripts are just
easy as autoconf ones.  However, if you're on a system that either doesn't
know about, then you have a better chance of getting something working
with metaconfig than autoconf, or so I have been told by people porting
packages using both to exotic systems.

--tom