Re: [gentoo-dev] Is anyone a prude?

Quoting Krzysiek Pawlik <krzysiek.pawlik@××××××.pl>:

> purslow@×××××××××.ca wrote:
> >>Visit it's site: http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/
> >>- You'll know why 'parodical'.
> > not really: it looks like something which might have real uses.
>
> Hm... harder than perl, uglier than perl - nope. I think I'll stay with
> C/C++ and Python :)
>
> > it's a pity its inventor gave it such an ugly name,
> > but some people are like that ... (smile).
>
> If someone doesn't like it's name - use acronym - bf
>
> > since the name is well-established, no objection here to adding it to
> Gentoo.
>
> I'm not a dev, but I don't have any objections too.

Well ... someone's gotta step in and say "No!", so I will. I've just witnessed
and participated in a semi-debate on the value of devoting effort to
Gentoo/CygWin. If Gentoo/CygWin isn't worth the effort to maintain, why on
Earth are the developers wasting time on maintaining a package that does
absolutely nothing but *syntax coloring* in a *single* editor for a language
with a questionable name that is an 8-instruction Turing complete environment
limited to a 30 kilobyte address space?

Does Gentoo support the free APL derivative A Plus? How's that Axiom package
coming along? How about ebuilds for Common Lisp Music and Common Music
Notation? The x86-64 arch work -- that's all done, right? The GLSA integration
with Portage?

I'm not going to leave Gentoo because it supports vim syntax coloring for
brainfuck and Fedora and Debian don't. And I'm not going to leave Gentoo if
Debian supports it and Gentoo doesn't either. I simply think that just because
something is easy doesn't necessarily mean it should be done. In this
particular case, rather than ask if anyone **objects** to the package, let me
ask "Is there a *compelling* reason why it **should** be in the Portage tree?"
--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list