On 7/6/21 3:50 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Sean,
In message <7143cb1e-4061-3034-57b9-1a12753fa...@gmail.com> you wrote:
You complain that the existing port of hus has a number of severe
limitations or bugs which have long been fixed upstream,
The bugs are fairly minor. The particular characteristics of Hush have
not changed. These characteristics make Hush difficult to adapt to the
limitations of U-Boot. When we cannot support the basic abstractions
expected by Hush, the shell will necessarily change for the worse.
This is not true. Just have a look what hush in a recent version of
Busybox offers.
Busybox runs in a Linux environment. Many of its features rely on the
core functionality provided by Linux, which we do not provide in U-Boot.
This is what makes porting features difficult.
but cannot be easily fixed in U-Boot
Because they are core to the design of Hush (and other bourne derived
shells).
Oh, this is an interesting opinion. I doubt if a majority (or even
a significant percentage) of U-Boot users share it. If you were
right, there would be far less users of bash (or other "bourne
derived shells"). Guess which percentage of users of UNIX operating
systems is using a Tcl based command interpreter as their login
shell?
And yet, this is not the field we compete in. While bourne-style shells
can take advantage of a multi-threaded environment, embedded shells tend
to implement a much wider set of languages. See [1] for a survey of
examples.
--Sean
[1] https://github.com/dbohdan/embedded-scripting-languages
