On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 21:05 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > It is hypothetically possible to get all of the configured files > right by hand, but in practice we didn't have enough years in our > expected lives to do it. Perhaps you can show us how to do > it. Assistance would certainly be welcome. > > Hack configure.ac, generate configure on another platform, continue > hacking untill port is done. No need whatsoever to have autoconf on > the target system (you could even cross compile!). > > Sure it is. Consider bash. > > So lets consider bash, what is wrong with it?
As I have already said, "legacy" does not mean "bad", and there is nothing wrong with bash. But in the large scheme of things, bash simply does not have a large enough user base to be of primary importance. > Emacs must be complete and utter crap if you base things based on how > long they have existed... And you'd be suprised how similar todays > Emacs is to the Emacs that ran on ITS. I probably wouldn't be surprised at all. Once again, I did not say that legacy is bad. Like bash, the user base for emacs is tiny. One does not design successful systems by focusing on the rather strange desires of a small number of developers. One asks: how do I best support the end users, and within that constraint, how to I keep the developers interested? End users do not use emacs! > Or m4. Hell, even Stu Feldman thought m4 was crap, and he wrote it! > > Care to give an actual reason why m4 is crap? Nope. I'll leave that to Stu. But M4 is *both* legacy *and* crap. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
