From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:26:06 -0400 From: Kurt H Maier To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20120828182606.GA13190@intma.in> References: <20120828141332.GA10058@intma.in> <6af219d70f9551dee8d013e5c34a255f@proxima.alt.za> <20120828150521.GA10731@intma.in> <20120828153036.GA11005@intma.in> <20120828174334.GA12589@intma.in> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [9fans] rc vs sh Topicbox-Message-UUID: b1b638d4-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:50:27PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote: > > You are conflating bootstrapping the language with the language's > build system. The go command is actually quite nice. > Also, the go command is useless unless the bootstrap build system can construct it. I'm not conflating anything, I'm just not talking about the build system you like. > The use of bash in Go is tiny. Why fixate on it when you could go > build something useful, instead? Because a corrected build system would be useful to me. Is this a complicated concept? > > Evidence suggests otherwise. > I have yet to see such. > Anyway, I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a > pissing match with some random person on the Internet about Go's use > of bash. If it's such a serious problem for you, well, I hope you > figure out a way to work around it. If not, then I don't know what to > tell you. In either case, good luck! I wish you would have ascertained you had nothing to tell me earlier in the thread. Thank you for your support.