On Wednesday 24 March 2010 10:49:12 am Ivan Voras wrote: > 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.
I think if you were to read the source to etcupdate.sh you would find that it is actually rather close to how I would write it if I were to do it in C (except it is far less complicated now since I can use tools like diff directly). -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ 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"
