On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:26:22PM -0700, Jordan Hubbard wrote:
> > I myself questioned the wisdom of using Forth at the time, and Jordan 
> > simply replied I was free to find a more popular language with a freely 
> > available interpreter that would fit in as small a space as FICL did.
> I also have to question the assertion that the community of people who
> understand or have even a passing familiarity with this sort of thing
> [a forth-based loader] is miniscule.  OpenBoot, for example, is
> entirely forth-based (c.f. Mitch Bradley). Every machine Sun has ever
> shipped in any serious quantity has OpenBoot as its loader.  Every

And I don't know a *single* Sun admin (current or ex) that has ever done
any OpenBoot/forth scripts.  Not a *single* one.  Nor does Solaris or
even your own company (Apple) try to do as much in OpenBoot as we do in
our loader.  We often desire /boot/*.4th tweaks, but only 1-2 people have
enough passing knowledge of Forth to do it.

> FreeBSD is simply following an well-established trend for boot loaders
> here rather than going its own way,

Not really.  You are speaking of machine firmware.  OpenBoot loads the
bootblock and provides some BIOS-like services.  Our bootblocks load our
FICL loader.  Thus you really cannot compare the two the way you do.

> and if we were to use Ruby as our
> boot loader then I'm sure a lot of Japanese people would be very happy
> but it would also make us utterly unique, a decision of even more
> questionable wisdom.

A lot more people can tweak an existing Ruby script, than an existing
forth one.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to