On 03/24/10 15:02, John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday 24 March 2010 9:11:21 am Ivan Voras wrote:
On 03/23/10 16:08, John Baldwin wrote:
[snip - looks like a good utility, will probably use it instead of
mergemaster if it gets committed, like the idea about automated updates]
To that end, I wrote a new tool that I think does a decent job of solving
these goals.
Since the issue comes around very rarely, I assume there are not many
people who also get the shivers when they see a shell script (and then a
"posixy" /bin/sh shell script) more than a 100 lines long? :)
Wouldn't it be nice to have a "blessed" (i.e. present-in-base) script
language interpreter with a syntax that has evolved since the 1970-ies?
(with a side-glance to C that *has* evolved since the K&R style).
"You can write Fortran in any language."
I feel I should quote some saying from a holy book saying "Ah, but some
languages make it harder than the others!" but I don't know of any such :)
If there are specific things in specific scripts that are poorly commented or
implemented then I would work on fixing those. The same is true of the
mountain of C code in the tree. Rewriting them in a different language will
not automatically make them any better.
C is good enough. I'm after /bin/sh here.
"Whatever language you write in, your task as a programmer is to do the best
you can with the tools at hand. A good programmer can overcome a poor language
or a clumsy operating system, but even a great programming environment will
not rescue a bad programmer." (Kernighan and Pike)
I'll accept it.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
