On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Teske, Devin wrote: > "But shell is nasty; slow; and not as powerful as C" (it depends in what > context; the first is rhetoric, the second is only true for poor implement- > ations, and the third may be true in some contexts, but I consider the > answer to "how maintainable is it" to be a factor in the "power" of a > language, so don't necessarily consider C to be more powerful than > shell as the latter is as-or-more maintainable with fewer LoC and a > higher return on investment; see previous [above] arguments). My question would be: why are sh and C the only choices? If the answer is "because that's all we have in base", is that a valid concern? As far as sh, it lacks many high- or even mid-level constructs and has real problems with quoting, parsing, and output (2>&1 >&3, for example). These make it harder to do things (aka, more code to accomplish a task, more code to be maintained, more difficult to modify) than the higher level Perubython languages. In any case, thanks for working on this. A functioning program in any language is better than a non-existent "better" one.Received on Wed Oct 09 2013 - 13:29:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:42 UTC