>Matthias Ulrich Neeracher <neeri@iis.ee.ethz.ch> wrote: > >> I think I understand your feelings, but for the n-th time, TURNING Perl >> INTO AN OSA LANGUAGE DOESN'T SHRINK IT TO THE SIZE OF APPLESCRIPT OR >> FRONTIER. Perl is a large language. There is no way to make it smaller. >> The only way is to wait for a system with improved memory and process >> management, where the size is not as noticeable. > I must have missed this post. I KNOW it doesn't actually change the SIZE of perl. Let me strike this at a different angle: Have you EVER tried to get your boss to do something that'll make your life easier, and a whole lot simpler, and be good for the company, AND has virtually no risks, but because of what you're doing (*gasp* adding ANOTHER program to the server) s/he won't let you do it? I get that a LOT. In all truthfulness, the OSA componant has two advantages for me: it has fewer files to take care of (my boss would like that- even if it just SEEMS less complicated, he thinks there'll be fewer conflictions, and that's great (and also slightly correct). Second is standards compliance. People love that, including my boss (again =). It makes the system seem more 'professional' (there are only two well-publicized OSA scripting languages, AppleScript and Frontier, even though tcl is also OSA) and so it would stand out in another way as well; that's another plus in getting people to accept and use it. You asked in the documentation for it (if I recall) if people would use it or wanted it. I realize you're not here to cater to my boss, but I have to be, and so I'm answering your question: if it wouldn't crash when I did anything (like check syntax) then yes, _I'd_ use it. I'm sure there are others as well, perhaps who aren't on this list. If you don't develop it, I'll cope, but I would use it if you made it. Didn't mean to start such a heated debate... =) -Strider ***** Want to unsubscribe from this list? ***** Send mail with body "unsubscribe" to mac-perl-request@iis.ee.ethz.ch