Hello,
I am just curious...
Here
http://9fans.net/archive/2007/11/120
Russ Cox writes he uses bash as his default shell. Does anybody know
the reason? Is this for practicality within the linux environment? Or
has he found rc too limiting?
Ruda
because he uses a mac.
On Tuesday 28 of August 2012 10:57:06 Rudolf Sykora wrote:
Hello,
I am just curious...
Here
http://9fans.net/archive/2007/11/120
Russ Cox writes he uses bash as his default shell. Does anybody know
the reason? Is this for practicality within the linux environment? Or
has he found rc too
FWIW, i'm using bash as the interactive shell too, in `konsole' terminal
emulator, because of bash' interactive line edition and command history.
9term
doesn't fit me.
all scripting -- both standalone and in mkfiles -- goes in rc, thou.
Russ uses bash because it is uniformly crappy
On 28 August 2012 15:07, Lucio De Re lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
Russ uses bash because it is uniformly crappy across all architectures
he has an interest in. There's a similar conversation going on in the
go-nuts user group on google. It is illuminating.
I have been unable to locate the
Anyway, I do not understand how uniform crappiness can be advantageous...
The issue raised on Go-Nuts is that Bash shouldn't be used for
installing Go, /bin/sh should be used instead. The response is that
Bash is the most uniformly implemented of the /bin/sh's out there and
that none of the
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 04:10:39PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Anyway, I do not understand how uniform crappiness can be advantageous...
The issue raised on Go-Nuts is that Bash shouldn't be used for
installing Go, /bin/sh should be used instead. The response is that
Bash is the most
On Tuesday 28 of August 2012 16:10:39 Lucio De Re wrote:
Anyway, I do not understand how uniform crappiness can be advantageous...
The issue raised on Go-Nuts is that Bash shouldn't be used for
installing Go, /bin/sh should be used instead. The response is that
Bash is the most uniformly
env bash - posix 2.0
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/aC7Qr1qtZ2I
ypical Go shit there. If the scripts are so complicated that it's a
pain in the ass to find a way to run them, fix the stupid scripts.
They did, by building the go command.
Do you think you can provide any guarantees that the subset of /bin/sh
features common to all current instances of
i don't know. but the problem isn't the consistency of rc. byron's
rc doesn't count. that's like saying the bourne shell is not consistent
because of bash.
But I am saying that, and I believe that is what motivates the Go Team
to continue using Bash. They know that Bash works. They also
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 04:52:34PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Or are you oriented towards kiloLOCs of test code to see which
features are implemented and provide compatability a la autoconf?
Excellent example of a false dilemma. I'm oriented towards exerting the
effort to make something
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Rudolf Sykora rudolf.syk...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Howdy.
I am just curious...
Here
http://9fans.net/archive/2007/11/120
Russ Cox writes he uses bash as his default shell. Does anybody know
the reason? Is this for practicality within the linux
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 04:52:34PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Or are you oriented towards kiloLOCs of test code to see which
features are implemented and provide compatability a la autoconf?
Excellent example of a false
And rc is not perfect. I've always felt like the 'if not' stuff was a kludge.
no, it's certainly not. (i wouldn't call if not a kludge—just ugly. the
haahr/rakitzis es' if makes more sense, even if it's wierder.)
but the real question with rc is, what would you fix?
i can only think of a
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 04:52:34PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Or are you oriented towards kiloLOCs of test code to see which
features are implemented and provide compatability a la autoconf?
Excellent example of a false dilemma. I'm oriented towards exerting the
effort to make something
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:48:39PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
Wonderful! Please point me to your new programming language so I can
have a look?
I don't think it would do you any good, since you are apparently unable
to differentiate between programming languages and build systems.
So are
perhaps (let's hope) someone else has better ideas.
The Inferno shell was (is) slick!
++L
On Tue Aug 28 11:33:06 EDT 2012, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
perhaps (let's hope) someone else has better ideas.
The Inferno shell was (is) slick!
and iirc, the slickness depends on limbo.
- erik
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Sure, feel free to make something that isn't shitty, there's plenty
out there that can be improved. The machinery to install Go (from
sources) is hardly the most important amongst them.
The Go team has already explicitly stated
Solution: replace
the #!/bin/sh with #!/usr/bin/env -c /bin/bash. Why not?
Because there are plenty of systems out there without env or bash.
so what's the reason for this argument on 9fans? is it that it makes
building go on plan 9 harder?
- erik
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:48:39PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
Wonderful! Please point me to your new programming language so I can
have a look?
I don't think it would do you any good, since you are apparently unable
to
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:41:05AM -0400, erik quanstrom wrote:
so what's the reason for this argument on 9fans? is it that it makes
building go on plan 9 harder?
I think it started out with rc users defending their purity of essence.
I'm just an Unattached Lensman with the Galactic
Solution: replace
the #!/bin/sh with #!/usr/bin/env -c /bin/bash. Why not?
Because there are plenty of systems out there without env or bash.
Worth a try, though! There is very little shell code left in the Go
release. Maybe I'll give it a try on my pristine NetBSD machine.
But note that
great, it's becoming a pissing contest.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 04:52:34PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Do you think you can provide any guarantees that the subset of /bin/sh
features common to all current instances of /bin/sh is adequate to
build a moderately demanding open source package?
Yes. This is what is done by the R.I.S.K.
Yes. This is what is done by the R.I.S.K. framework used for building
KerGIS and kerTeX.
I'm pretty sure that R.I.S.K has more than 2,250 lines of code. That's
the LOC count of \.(ba)?sh$ stuff in the Go tree. Also, nobody seemed
to mention that Go also ships with rc files to build on Plan 9...
against 9, not nix. Did you remove those system deprecated system
calls when you removed support for printing them?
i think we're in noisy agreement, and that's probablly my fault.
sorry.
i'd removed the _X syscalls about 3 months ago from both nix
and plan 9 since they really seem useless at
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:15:35PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
Oh no, I can't. Please, by all means, point me to whatever it is that
you have produced that demonstrates your prowess in this area so that
I can learn more.
you sound upset
Irrelevant.
The topic at hand is not irrelevant to
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 06:05:04PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
But note that even if it does work, it is still not possible for the
Go Team to release the scripts as /bin/sh scripts because, as you have
clearly not yet grasped, not all /bin/sh instances out there can be
shown to be compatible
My only actual statement is that a better
solution would be de-shitting the build process so that it doesn't
require such a precise set of software to operate.
Does that translate into being able to supply an example of such a
de-shitting process the Go Team could and should have followed? An
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:19:52PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Does that translate into being able to supply an example of such a
de-shitting process the Go Team could and should have followed? An
irresistible paragon of building prowess? Something even the autoconf
people would be tempted
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:13 PM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 09:15:35PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
Oh no, I can't. Please, by all means, point me to whatever it is that
you have produced that demonstrates your prowess in this area so that
I can learn more.
you
On Tuesday 28 of August 2012 11:26:19 erik quanstrom wrote:
And rc is not perfect. I've always felt like the 'if not' stuff was a
kludge.
no, it's certainly not. (i wouldn't call if not a kludge—just ugly. the
haahr/rakitzis es' if makes more sense, even if it's wierder.)
but the real
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:50:27PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
You are conflating bootstrapping the language with the language's
build system. The go command is actually quite nice.
Also, the go command is useless unless the bootstrap build system can
construct it. I'm not conflating
One last thing:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:50:27PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
You are conflating bootstrapping the language with the language's
build system. The go command is actually quite nice.
Also, the go command is
switch/case would make helluva difference over nested if/if not, if
defaulted to fall-through.
maybe you have an example? because i don't see that. if not works
fine, and can be nested. case without fallthrough is also generally
what i want. if not, i can make the common stuff a function.
On Tuesday 28 of August 2012 14:44:40 erik quanstrom wrote:
(...)
variable scoping (better than subshel) would help writing larger
scripts, but that's not necessarily an improvement ;-) something
similar to LISP's `let' special form, for dynamic binding.
there is variable scoping. you
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:18 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
i'd removed the _X syscalls about 3 months ago from both nix
and plan 9 since they really seem useless at this point (especially
in nix) and therefore i removed it from the tracing.
definitely makes sense if the
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:56 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
And rc is not perfect. I've always felt like the 'if not' stuff was a
kludge.
no, it's certainly not. (i wouldn't call if not a kludge—just ugly.
Kludge perhaps in the sense that it seems to be to work around an
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:44:40 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
=20
switch/case would make helluva difference over nested if/if not, if
defaulted to fall-through.
maybe you have an example? because i don't see that. if not works
fine, and can be nested. case without
But something that may be interesting would
be the ability to allow the stream of computations to branch; instead
of pipelines being just a list, make them a tree, or even some kind of
dag (if one allows for the possibility of recombining streams).
Rc has this. It's great. See section 10 of
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:48:39PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
So are you saying that because they use bash to build the system, the
language is shitty? Or just the build system is shitty?
I have other issues with Go as a
Well, if you could explain a) how it's currently broken, and b) how a
'corrected' version would be useful, others might be more sympathetic
to your concerns. From most perspectives, it doesn't appear broken at
all; it works fine, it's just not what you would have done.
Speak for yourself,
[Since the previous one did not reach the list (?), I send it once more]
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:12:15PM +0300, Aram H?v?rneanu wrote:
Yes. This is what is done by the R.I.S.K. framework used for building
KerGIS and kerTeX.
I'm pretty sure that R.I.S.K has more than 2,250 lines of code.
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Kurt H Maier kh...@intma.in wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 05:36:58PM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
Sure, feel free to make something that isn't shitty, there's plenty
out there that can be improved. The machinery to install Go (from
sources) is hardly the most
On Aug 29, 2012 2:14 AM, Jeremy Jackins jeremyjack...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if you could explain a) how it's currently broken, and b) how a
'corrected' version would be useful, others might be more sympathetic
to your concerns. From most perspectives, it doesn't appear broken at
all; it
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:09:13AM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
Well, if you could explain a) how it's currently broken, and b) how a
'corrected' version would be useful, others might be more sympathetic
to your concerns. From most perspectives, it doesn't appear broken at
all; it works fine, it's
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:11:26 +0530 Dan Cross cro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:56 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wro=
perhaps (let's hope) someone else has better ideas.
Well, something off the top of my head: Unix pipelines are sort of
like chains of
the haahr/rakitzis es' if makes more sense, even if it's wierder.)
Agreed; es would be an interesting starting point for a new shell.
es is great input. there are really cool ideas there, but it does
seem like a lesson learned to me, rather than a starting point.
I think in order to
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:34:10 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
my knee-jerk reaction to my own question is that making it easier
and more natural to parallelize dataflow. a pipeline is just a really
low-level way to talk about it. the standard
grep x *.[ch]
forces all
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 07:12:15PM +0300, Aram H?v?rneanu wrote:
Yes. This is what is done by the R.I.S.K. framework used for building
KerGIS and kerTeX.
I'm pretty sure that R.I.S.K has more than 2,250 lines of code. That's
the LOC count of \.(ba)?sh$ stuff in the Go tree. Also, nobody
this machine works now in mp mode (after 4 years) with
9front's acpi implementation.
http://9fans.net/archive/2008/02/671
--
cinap
Hello,
On 2012/08/29, at 4:34, dexen deVries wrote:
now i see i can do:
x=1 y=2 z=3
...and only `z' retains its new value in the external scope, while `x' and
`y'
are limited in scope.
No.
ar% a=1 b=2 c=3; echo $a $b $c
1 2 3
ar% a=() b=() c=()
ar% a=1 b=2 {c=3}; echo $a $b $c
3
ar%
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012, wrote:
this machine works now in mp mode (after 4 years) with
9front's acpi implementation.
http://9fans.net/archive/2008/02/671
--
cinap
Nice!
On Tue Aug 28 19:03:05 EDT 2012, cinap_len...@gmx.de wrote:
this machine works now in mp mode (after 4 years) with
9front's acpi implementation.
http://9fans.net/archive/2008/02/671
if there is one, can you dump the table and send it to me?
i'm just curious how it is messed up. and also
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:34:10 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net
wrote:
my knee-jerk reaction to my own question is that making it easier
and more natural to parallelize dataflow. a pipeline is just a really
low-level way to talk about it. the standard
grep x *.[ch]
forces
The feature I want is the ability to pass not just character
values in environment or pipes but arbitrary Scheme objects.
But that requires changes at the OS level (or mapping them
to/from strings, which is a waste if both sides can handle
structured objects).
!? the ability to pass typed
var:[^ctl-a]*
| ([^ctl-a]*) ctl-a list
sorry. s/list/var/
- erik
9fans,
I dusted off rdbfs(4) today to dig into a kernel issue and ended up
running into what looks like the same issue bwc reported back in 2005:
barstow% import cons /mnt/consoles
barstow% rdbfs -d -t /386/9pccpu /mnt/consoles/target
attach /mnt/consoles/target
barstow% acid -k 1 /386/9pccpu
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:39:06 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
The feature I want is the ability to pass not just character
values in environment or pipes but arbitrary Scheme objects.
But that requires changes at the OS level (or mapping them
to/from strings, which is a
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:39:06 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net
wrote:
The feature I want is the ability to pass not just character
values in environment or pipes but arbitrary Scheme objects.
But that requires changes at the OS level (or mapping them
to/from strings, which
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:23:20 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:39:06 EDT erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wr
ote:
The feature I want is the ability to pass not just character
values in environment or pipes but arbitrary Scheme objects.
But
aback.com has ns.buydomains.com as nameserver, which seem to
announce itself to be responsible for the whole .com tld and
answers positively to everything with bullshit spam ip addresses
causing all further .com domain queries to get resolved by that
spam ns.buydomains.com dns. :(
is this allowed
On Tue Aug 28 23:33:20 EDT 2012, cinap_len...@gmx.de wrote:
aback.com has ns.buydomains.com as nameserver, which seem to
announce itself to be responsible for the whole .com tld and
answers positively to everything with bullshit spam ip addresses
causing all further .com domain queries to get
The feature I want is the ability to pass not just character
values in environment or pipes but arbitrary Scheme objects.
But that requires changes at the OS level (or mapping them
to/from strings, which is a waste if both sides can handle
structured objects).
!?
67 matches
Mail list logo
