Re[2]: [9fans] Re: Perl5 & kenji arisawa's perl question

Re[2]: [9fans] Re: Perl5 & kenji arisawa's perl question

[steve.simon]

I know I'am going to regret this :-)

but what is tso(6)?

Any relation to the rje support the pwb?

-Steve

Re: Re[2]: [9fans] Re: Perl5 & kenji arisawa's perl question

[Boyd Roberts]

From: <steve.simon@snellwilcox.com>
> 
> but what is tso(6)?
> 

well section 6 tells you it's a game.  it was a tso
[time sharing option?] 'simulation'.  i think i saw
it in 8th ed, but i'm not sure.

check out:

    http://osr4.berkeley.edu/Public/TECH/TUTORIALS/tso.html

Re: [9fans] Re: Perl5 & kenji arisawa's perl question

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Boyd Roberts wrote:
> From: <steve.simon@snellwilcox.com>
> > but what is tso(6)?
> well section 6 tells you it's a game.  it was a tso
> [time sharing option?] 'simulation'.

Hm, should I port my Adventure shell to rc?

Re: [9fans] Re: Perl5 & kenji arisawa's perl question

[Boyd Roberts]

From: Douglas A. Gwyn <gwyn@arl.army.mil>
> 
> Hm, should I port my Adventure shell to rc?
> 

gotta be a better idea than the perl port :-)

Re: [9fans] Re: Perl5 & kenji arisawa's perl question

[George Michaelson]

boyd@planete.net (Boyd Roberts) writes:

>From: Douglas A. Gwyn <gwyn@arl.army.mil>
>> 
>> Hm, should I port my Adventure shell to rc?
>> 

>gotta be a better idea than the perl port :-)

but would you of neccessity say the same thing of a python port? or
a tcl port? seems like it might be better to be explicit about
criticizing a language, not the idea of porting language(s) per se.

(and I believe some bumf on inferno implied it would be a killer java
 platform)

-George

Re: [9fans] Re: Perl5 & kenji arisawa's perl question

[Boyd Roberts]

From: George Michaelson <ggm@dstc.edu.au>

> boyd@planete.net (Boyd Roberts) writes:
>
> >gotta be a better idea than the perl port :-)
> 
> but would you of neccessity say the same thing of a python port? or
> a tcl port? seems like it might be better to be explicit about
> criticizing a language, not the idea of porting language(s) per se.
> 

i'm criticising the language, not languages.  perl is an abortion;
it is unreadable, the grammar is ghastly and it violates the 'tools'
approach.

i understand why sysadmins like it.  i just won't use it,
although i have bug-fixed it.

i would also object to csh, sendmail, vi, *rn, readnews, X
and various other pieces of unix trash being ported to plan 9.
it's plan 9, if you want unix, you know where to find it.

Re: [9fans] Re: Perl5 & kenji arisawa's perl question

[Greg Shubin]

Boyd Roberts wrote:

> From: George Michaelson <ggm@dstc.edu.au>
>
> > boyd@planete.net (Boyd Roberts) writes:
> >
> > >gotta be a better idea than the perl port :-)
> >
> > but would you of neccessity say the same thing of a python port? or
> > a tcl port? seems like it might be better to be explicit about
> > criticizing a language, not the idea of porting language(s) per se.
> >
>
> i'm criticising the language, not languages.  perl is an abortion;
> it is unreadable, the grammar is ghastly and it violates the 'tools'
> approach.
>
> i understand why sysadmins like it.  i just won't use it,
> although i have bug-fixed it.
>
> i would also object to csh, sendmail, vi, *rn, readnews, X
> and various other pieces of unix trash being ported to plan 9.
> it's plan 9, if you want unix, you know where to find it.

As a Plan 9 newbie, that's one of the things that I don't quite get. On
one hand it seems that the "official" position is Plan 9 contains
everything you need. But then I see everyone porting their favorite
tools to it. As you point out, pretty soon it will have as much bloat as
Un*x. Is there an official position on what should and shouldn't be
ported?

(Personally I like the features of bash (completion, history using arrow
keys, emacs command editing, etc). )

At the risk of escalating language flame wars, what's your opinion of
(wait a second, let me get into my bomb shelter) C++?

Re: [9fans] Re: Perl5 & kenji arisawa's perl question

[Boyd Roberts]

From: Greg Shubin <gshubin@sonic.net>
> 
> (Personally I like the features of bash (completion, history using arrow
> keys, emacs command editing, etc). )

bash...

you have not understood rc.

Re: Re[2]: [9fans] Re: Perl5 & kenji arisawa's perl question

[forsyth]

>>well section 6 tells you it's a game.  it was a tso
>>[time sharing option?] 'simulation'.  i think i saw
>>it in 8th ed, but i'm not sure.

it was a version of the unix shell (5th/6th edition) with prompts, diagnostics and other text
modified to reflect the IEH2374I INVALID DATA SET NAME style of TSO;
it also stty'd lcase so input and output was of course UPPER CASE.
i remember it had judiciously placed sleeps the better to mimic the full TSO feel.