From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:46:27 +0200 From: tlaronde@polynum.com To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20130430154627.GA18540@polynum.com> References: <517F59DD.8010108@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [9fans] [GSOC 2013] Implement plan9 commands in Go, Goblin Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4d2a6f92-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:26:50PM +0200, Aram H?v?rneanu wrote: > > I don't see how they would benefit from being rewritten in go. > > Sometimes I need to deploy something written in rc(1) over a > heterogenous Linux cluster, This is in part Plan9 related. For kerTeX, simply because my compilation framework was done this way, I use POSIX.2 utilities: sh(1) and make(1) mainly. So, on Plan9, kerTeX compiles under APE. But, despite POSIX being the one standard for systems, not everything is really present everywhere, even on Unices (ed(1) is typically something that is left out, while this is the only _line_ editor so the only editor that should be here). So I will have, to ensure that kerTeX runs everywhere, to provide some core utilities. And I think I will switch from sh(1) (ksh or ash) to rc(1) because rc(1) has regexp manipulations, and this is typically a lot of what is done in the scripts (the a=$(echo $b | sed ...) is not really efficient or beautiful). So there may be a rc(1) base sys utilities set some day. (But if someone does it before me, I will not be unhappy) Because, using only C89 (or C99) is great. System(3) is standard C. But the interpreter is neither guaranteed nor defined. If you have scripts (and MetaPost has some for example; and kerTeX administration needs some for the packages...) -- Thierry Laronde http://www.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C