On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Ivan Voras wrote:
This is my long-term point - it really would be beneficial to have an
alternative, richer language in base which would fall between the
categories of "a good system language but far too complex for simple
string-parsing stuff" which is C and "a good glue la
On 16/08/2010, at 4:15 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Ivan Voras wrote:
>
>> This is my long-term point - it really would be beneficial to have an
>> alternative, richer language in base which would fall between the
>> categories of "a good system language but far too complex for
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:15:55PM -0700 I heard the voice of
Doug Barton, and lo! it spake thus:
>
> However, a bigger reason was that it was impossible to marry our
> concept of a "stable" branch with the ever-evolving world that was
> perl.
This one at least is conceptually pretty easy to solv
In message , Doug Barton writes:
>On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> This is my long-term point - [...]
Some of use were 12 years ahead of you :-)
>I sort of agree with you here, but I don't. :) ONE of the reasons that
>perl was axed [...]
Actually, let me put that stuff on the record,
> Personally, I think the whole "base" and "ports" thing is an artificial
> divide that is rapidly losing utility. I think we're past due for
> stripping the FreeBSD "base" down to a much more bare minimum, and
> having a lot more of the bells and whistles live in the ports tree.
Strongly disag
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
...
PS: The sickening irony is that today we have two embedded languages,
one in the kernel even, and it is the most crappy ones you can
imagine: Forth and ACPI.
Besides the syntax FORTH ist the only embeddable high level language
which has both in
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 09:47:40AM +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > Personally, I think the whole "base" and "ports" thing is an artificial
> > divide that is rapidly losing utility. I think we're past due for
> > stripping the FreeBSD "base" down to a much more bare minimum, and
> > having a
Doug Barton writes:
> lua too "flavor of the day," not enough track record of stability,
> not enough installed base/proven utility
You're wrong. Lua has been around for ages and is especially widely
used as a game scripting engine. It is not intended as a standalone
language, but as an
> zsh less POSIX-compliant, oddly deviant from "standard"
> bourne-derived shells which makes graybeards break out in hives
> also, see ruby under user community
ZSH has a POSIX-compliant interface through emulate -L sh or by naming
(linking) zsh binary sh.
even if the man page
2010/8/16 Dag-Erling Smørgrav :
> Doug Barton writes:
>> lua too "flavor of the day," not enough track record of stability,
>> not enough installed base/proven utility
>
> You're wrong. Lua has been around for ages and is especially widely
> used as a game scripting engine. It is not int
On 08/16/2010 00:47, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
If I only wanted a kernel and everything else as installable packages,
I might as well use one of the Linux distributions.
That wasn't at all what I said, or what I was suggesting. There is a
middle ground between "everything is a package" and the
2010/8/16 Dag-Erling Smørgrav :
> Doug Barton writes:
>> lua too "flavor of the day," not enough track record of stability,
>> not enough installed base/proven utility
>
> You're wrong. Lua has been around for ages and is especially widely
> used as a game scripting engine. It is not int
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:15:55PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> got any other suggestions?
This is very much a "sorry I asked" question, but is none-the
less quite a good one, given the size of the hole to be plugged.
I think that a reasonable answer for this sort of thing might be
one of the dyna
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:43:41PM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:15:55PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> > got any other suggestions?
>
> This is very much a "sorry I asked" question, but is none-the
> less quite a good one, given the size of the hole to be plugged.
>
> I t
+---[ Luigi Rizzo ]--
| On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:43:41PM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
| > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:15:55PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
| > > got any other suggestions?
| >
| > This is very much a "sorry I asked" question, but is none-the
| > less quite a go
Hi Luigi,
On 19/08/2010, at 00:28 , Luigi Rizzo wrote:
> slightly off topic but I disagree on the latter part.
I didn't expect everyone to agree. Not sure that I do, necessarily, either.
(A neat, small language like TCL or Lua is probably better for most of the uses
we're discussing here.)
Luigi Rizzo writes:
> Having sources in some fantastic new language 'fuffa' and no 'fuffa2c'
> tool is almost as bad as having no source (in fact, it is like the
> joke of supplying source for the GPL'd software in your brand new
> LCD tv or appliance. I'd like to know who will ever be able to bui
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:15:55PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> got any other suggestions?
>
> This is very much a "sorry I asked" question, but is none-the
> less quite a good one, given the size of the hole to be plugged.
>
> I think that a
On 19/08/2010, C. P. Ghost wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Andrew Reilly
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:15:55PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> got any other suggestions?
>>
>> This is very much a "sorry I asked" question, but is none-the
>> less quite a good one, given the size o
Folks,
Sorry for chiming in, just a quick idea. If you find the "get a
high-level language that compiled to C" idea good, it might be worth
to take look at Feldspar [1]. It is about defining a domain-specific
language for a given domain (Digital Signal Processing) that compiles
to standard ISO C
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:00:54 +0200 "C. P. Ghost" wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Andrew Reilly wro=
> te:
> > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:15:55PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> >> got any other suggestions?
> >
> > This is very much a "sorry I asked" question, but is none-the
> > less quit
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> +1 for Scheme! It has a lot in its favor (see below).
>
> But this is an abstract discussion. Until there are plenty of
> useful system scripts (in one of these languages) that people
> really want, nothing is going to change.
Yes, it's abstrac
I didn't want to prolong this now mostly off-topic discussion
too much, but:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 06:00:54PM +0200, C. P. Ghost wrote:
> +1 for a scheme shell, but not for the heavy-weight variety that
> compiles to C, as that would tie them to a subset of ${ARCH}es.
Why do you say that? Most
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 06:40:37PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Will have to disagree on that - part of the point of having such a
> thing would be to attract young developers, and while the CS crowd
> will be happy with LISP, anyone starting programming after the first
> .com bubble will probably be
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:47:39AM +1000, Andrew Reilly wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 06:40:37PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
> > Will have to disagree on that - part of the point of having such a
> > thing would be to attract young developers, and while the CS crowd
> > will be happy with LISP, any
Hello, Doug.
You wrote 16 августа 2010 г., 10:15:55:
> lua too "flavor of the day," not enough track record of stability,
> not enough installed base/proven utility
To be honest, lua is used in TONS of (commercial and, often,
console) games as scripting engine, without any is
"C. P. Ghost" writes:
> After all LISP-like syntax is *still* more common and prevalent
> than Lua, e.g. in Elisp, guile, esh, scsh and a lot of other apps
> that use it as a small language. So we can expect more users
> to be at least partially familiar with it. And there *are* lightweight
> MIT-
Gabor PALI writes:
> Sorry for chiming in, just a quick idea. If you find the "get a
> high-level language that compiled to C" idea good,
I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't understand why this thread
seems stuck in that rut.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
2010/8/20 Dag-Erling Smørgrav :
> Gabor PALI writes:
>> Sorry for chiming in, just a quick idea. If you find the "get a
>> high-level language that compiled to C" idea good,
>
> I don't think it's a good idea
Could you be more specific on your concerns? I am just curious.
> I don't understand
On 8/20/2010 12:35 PM, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
Gabor PALI writes:
Sorry for chiming in, just a quick idea. If you find the "get a
high-level language that compiled to C" idea good,
I don't think it's a good idea, and I don't understand why this thread
seems stuck in that rut.
If your on
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:35:59 +0200 "C. P. Ghost" wrote:
>
> But seriously, the point isn't so much which specific interpreter
> we use (if we go down this road), it's about libraries: most
> sysadmin tasks require some basic networking and I/O,
> and a FFI to seamlessly call out C functions from
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> Anyway, system programming in Scheme is what interests me and
> something I already tinker with on and off. If anyone is
> interested (in helping or just playing with it), let me know
> privately (but *not* on this mailing list).
Not Scheme bu
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 21:33:08 +0200 =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?=
wrote:
> "C. P. Ghost" writes:
> > After all LISP-like syntax is *still* more common and prevalent
> > than Lua, e.g. in Elisp, guile, esh, scsh and a lot of other apps
> > that use it as a small language. So we can expect
Gabor PALI writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
> > Gabor PALI writes:
> > > Sorry for chiming in, just a quick idea. If you find the "get a
> > > high-level language that compiled to C" idea good,
> > I don't think it's a good idea
> Could you be more specific on your concerns? I am just cur
Am 22.08.2010 13:21, schrieb Dag-Erling Smørgrav:
> Gabor PALI writes:
>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav writes:
>>> Gabor PALI writes:
Sorry for chiming in, just a quick idea. If you find the "get a
high-level language that compiled to C" idea good,
>>> I don't think it's a good idea
>> Could y
Matthias Andree writes:
> Looks a bit like a swing. First we remove Perl from the base system
> (years ago) and move to sed/awk, now we discuss using a scripting
> language in the base system...
Read the discussion from the beginning. We are discussing introducing a
domain-specific scripting la
36 matches
Mail list logo
