Greetings, Patrick Haller wrote: > On 2011-09-25 03:19, Christoph Lohmann wrote: >> ocaml;wu (ocaml; won't use) > > use the bringer_obsolete.bash [1] from the package? > > why ocaml;wu? because it's outside the C/sh stack, or ?
in the first ecumenical council of the suckless church, C and sh were defined as the languages of pureness. This forbids using any- thing else for describing our words. Just a comparison: (Please use eight space tabs, for complete holiness.) Package Installation size -- New style languages -- ocaml-3.12.1 166552,00 K ruby-1.9.2_p290 18828,00 K python-3.2.1 79340,00 K ghc-7.0.3 621383,00 K openjdk6-6.b22_1.10.3 119742,00 K -- Bastardisation of C -- gcc-4.6.1 73222,00 K glibc-2.14 34752,00 K -- Interpreters of sh -- dash-0.5.7 164,00 K bash-4.2.010 3672,00 K -- For comparion: A whole OS -- emacs-23.3.a 96660,00 K As you can see, is Java, Ocaml nearly as big as Emacs OS, but GHC is six times the Emacs OS. All we need is a better syntax for sh, with the expressiveness of the new style languages like Python and without the whitespace nightmare, which forces people to use »simpler alternatives«. This should be doable in the size of dash. Rc does not fit very well, because it is missing mass adoption and has some ugliness in the various implementations across Plan 9 and the other OSes, that might exist. Why the fuck does everything »include batteries« (or as interpreted on ghc: »include an OS«)? Comments and ideas for an sh alternative, which sucks less, are welcome. Sincerely, Christoph Lohmann
