is esr a competent hacker? obviously. why did he choose python? read the
cml2 paper under
www.tuxedo.org/~esr/cml2 and find out. his complex system
cannot be practically done in shell script. c was rejected by esr because
it didn't have automatic memory management, the cause of most bugs. shell
script do have its places as does c as does python . for example,
`install-cml2' in the current cml2 distribution has about 50 lines of shell
script (i just downloaded it) to check for a valid python version, before
it does a `$python - $python <<EOF' to the other 300 lines or so, which is
in python. good for shell script, good for python. but following the
"coverting mp3 to wav" thread, even a small shell script gives
problems.....
better - easier for the developer to develop in, more fun for him to
develop in since he is not getting paid, easier for him to maintain.
i wonder why you hate lisp and dislike python. i don't hate shell
scripting...
* David Mandala <
david.mandala@developonline.com>:
| [snip]On Thu, 2002-01-31 at 17:17, Sriram Thaiyar wrote:
| >
| > |
| > | > - (i think that
| > | > not forcing the user to upgrade unnecessarily is a Good Thing.
| > |
| > | Am I the only one who hasn't a clue what you're talking about here?
| >
| >
| > what i am saying here is this: most people program in shell script because
| > that what is guraanteed to be on any system; but why not make the user
| > upgrade? what's is wrong with making the user upgrade if the program they
| > are going to use is not only better, but handles more features and more
| > convienent for them?
| >
|
| In response to this I'd say a couple of things:
|
| 1) define better.
|
| Just because you like a different language does not make it better, I
| may be running a very space constrained system and more/bigger is not
| better. For example I have a couple of systems that have 72 Meg hard
| disks (yes that is correct 72 MEG) and 8 Meg of RAM. I can not install
| any more software, but I do have shell installed.
|
| 2) define more convienent
| Just because you like a language does not make it better. I strongly
| dislike lisp, I do not install it on any of my systems, forcing me to
| waste space for something that could be written in shell is not smart
| nor is it more convienent for me, I would have to go through more work
| just to install something I would normally never use.
|
| Here is an example for you: A new Linux kernel build system is being
| worked on. It requires installing Python, which is another language I
| dislike. Normally I would never install it but I am forced to inorder to
| build new kernels. Is the better or more convienint for me? Hell no, but
| it is the language that Eric Raymond likes so now we are stuck with it.
| Though there are folks that are considering rewriting the tool in C
| since we must have C installed to build the kernel but except for the
| build system we don't need Python.
|
| In short better and convienent are very subjective things and what you
| consider to be "better and convienent", is at best annoying and a pain
| in the tail for me or possible impossible on a space constrained system.
| That is what is wrong with making a user upgrade for your convienence.
|
| Cheers,
|
| Davidm
(text/plain)