Martin wrote:
> In GRASS7 there is no extra support for shell scripts.
This is IMO a huge, huge mistake.
I am fine that all future run-time scripts shipped with GRASS 7+ be written
in python, but I think it is a serious strategic error to force users to
learn python and rewrite all their private & likely tested+trusted shell
scripts to a new language for what is essentially zero gain for them.
Encourage python for first-class addon scripts, yes; force it, no way.
I feel the same way about banning upper case option names in the parser.
Fine for official modules, but we should let the users do whatever they
please.
analogy: ensure that grass compiles with 'gcc -ansi' but don't mandate
that users' personal addon C programs do as well.
If users with a large investment/library of personal shell scripts will
have to rewrite all their scripts in python, and they already know some
Visual Basic, ... it's one thing for proprietary vendors to lock their
users in, it seems ridiculous to do the opposite and act to drive them
away.
So (IIU this C*), why should the removal of shell script support not be
reverted? What does it cost us to keep shell script support?**
[*] & I suspect I may not.
[**] loss of focus is a cost which must be balanced against continuity
Hamish
_______________________________________________
grass-dev mailing list
grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev
