From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rick Hohensee Message-Id: <200011020821.DAA12389@smarty.smart.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] usage of CPU server To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu In-Reply-To: <019301c0446b$a98aa8c0$0ab9c6d4@cybercable.fr> from "Boyd Roberts" at Nov 2, 0 02:24:35 am MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 03:21:03 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 20921548-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > > 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