Re: [9fans] usage of CPU server

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

> 
> >> Which bit of the Korn shell models the dependency graph?
> > > 
> > > 
> 
> > A dependancy graph is a tiny subset of what you can construct with -n and
> > friends, isn't it?
> 
> True, but it doesn't answer my question.  I asked "which bit of the
> Korn shell _models_ the dependency graph", not "which bits of the Korn
> shell can be assembled to create the same effect as the dependency
> graph in make".
> 
> I may as well have asked "which bits of the C language model the
> dependency graph", at which point your reply would have suggested that
> I should write a C program each time I want to assemble a kit of parts
> in the right order to create a whole.  Any language in which you can
> invoke other commands, test the relative age of files and do some
> filename manipulation is, according to your reply, better than make on
> the grounds that it is more general.
> 
> Now I'm not proposing that make is all we need; it's been superceded.
> However, I do suggest that the conciseness of a dependency graph
> notation is important.  There is plenty of evidence for this; the
> concept has been preserved in subsequent tools, IDEs etc..
> 
> So the question is, "which bit of the Korn shell _models_ the
> dependency graph?"
> 

You win your point, but mine is that modelling a dependancy graph within
the utility itself is not worth learning another "language". YMMV. I,
personnally, do things like convert the netpbm package to being make-less.

Rick Hohensee