Re: [9fans] usage of CPU server

[Rick Hohensee <humbubba@smarty.smart.net>]

> 
> the korn shell is an unmitigated disaster.
> 
> i remember korn standing up after the first
> paper at a usenix to ask a question.  his
> real agenda was to promote a new release
> of that abortion.
> 
> FYI: i put up the first version, back in '83/'84
>      at basser.  after reading the doc once i
>      swore i'd never use it.  i use it now,
>      'cos i need history.  in a (once) (near)
>      perfect world i used byron's rc.
> 
> now, the 8th Edition shell, now that was a shell.
> 
> as rob once wrote 'programming the inputs'.
> 
> 'whatis' over 'type' -- no comparison.
> 
> typing of shell variables?  give me a break.
> a PRNG in the shell -- don't make me puke.
> 
> steve bourne had the right idea.  the problem
> was the quoting was a nightmare (one i understand)
> and it had no real grammar.  tom duff nailed the
> grammer down with yacc and fixed the quoting -- a
> brilliant piece of insight.
> 
> korn reminds me of wnj.  he wrote a 'shell' too.
> 
> 

I don't doubt that there's severe
bletchery in ksh, but it's better than make. IMO.

rc is indeed nice. When abandoning Bourne altogether though,
I then look to Forth. I have put the bulk of the Linux syscalls 
in 2 Forths and my 3-stack Forth-like thing. The tricky bit is 
reconciling Forth's RPN non-syntax with unix command switches.
This may be ameliorated somewhat by most simple commands becoming
Forth words. 

There's strikingly little namespace conflict between a unix PATH
and a Forth dictionary. The only Linux syscall that's also a 
Forth word is dup.

Rick Hohensee
Forths and H3sm, tp://linux01.gwdg.de/pub/cLIeNUX/interim