On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Eris Discordia <eris.discor...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Try env | wc -l in bash. Now tell me why that value is so big. > >> [r...@host ~]# env | wc -l >> 37 >> [r...@host ~]# > > Is that very high? I don't even know if it is or how it would mean anything > bad (or good for that matter) assuming it were high. Not to mention, it's a > very bad metric. Because: > >> [r...@host ~]# env | wc -c >> 1404 >> [r...@host ~]# > > Most of it in the 19 lines for one TERMCAP variable. Strictly a relic of the > past kept with all good intentions: backward compatibility, and heeding the > diversity of hardware and configuration that still exists out there. 5 of > the other 18 lines are completely specific to my installation. That leaves > us with 13 short lines.
Grumble... s/env/set And then you see the guts of bash spill out. > > Quite a considerable portion of UNIX-like systems, FreeBSD in this case, is > the way it is not because the developers are stupid, rather because they > have a "constituency" to tend to. They aren't carefree researchers with high > ambitions. I leveled no claims against *BSD or Linux. I'm simply trying to point out that bash is utter garbage, as its own man page indicates. > > --On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:04 PM -0400 "J.R. Mauro" <jrm8...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Eris Discordia <eris.discor...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>> The man page *does* say it's too big and slow. So does the bash >>>> manpage. And getting readline to do anything sane is about as fun as >>>> screwing around with a terminfo file. >>> >>> A bad implementation is not a bad design. And, in fact, the badness of >>> the implementation is even questionable in the light of bash's normal >>> behavior or the working .inputrc files I've been using for some time. >> >> Behavior is not indicative of good design. It just means that the >> bandaids heaped upon bash (and X11, and...) make it work acceptably. >> >> Try env | wc -l in bash. Now tell me why that value is so big. >> >>> >>> Anyway, thanks for the info. >>> >>> --On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:57 PM -0400 "J.R. Mauro" >>> <jrm8...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Eris Discordia >>>> <eris.discor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I see. But seriously, readline does handle bindings and line editing >>>>> for bash. Except it's a function instead of a program and you think >>>>> it's a bad idea. >>>> >>>> The man page *does* say it's too big and slow. So does the bash >>>> manpage. And getting readline to do anything sane is about as fun as >>>> screwing around with a terminfo file. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> --On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:31 PM +0800 sqweek <sqw...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 2009/4/7 Eris Discordia <eris.discor...@gmail.com>: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Keyboard >>>>>>>>> bindings for example; why couldn't they be handled by a program >>>>>>>>> that just does keyboard bindings + line editing, and writes >>>>>>>>> finalized lines to the shell. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Like... readline(3)? >>>>>> >>>>>> No. >>>>>> -sqweek >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:09 AM -0700 ron minnich >>>>> <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Eris Discordia >>>>>> <eris.discor...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Like... readline(3)? >>>>>> >>>>>> one hopes not. >>>>>> >>>>>> ron >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >
