From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3c8aa139e8451bcecb896115c6cf114a@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:58:23 +0200
In-Reply-To: <412cd6aa7cc765f2fd4bd069d5fddec3@brasstown.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] rc vs sh
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b0dd440c-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> i don't know.  but the problem isn't the consistency of rc.  byron's
> rc doesn't count.  that's like saying the bourne shell is not consistent
> because of bash.

But I am saying that, and I believe that is what motivates the Go Team
to continue using Bash.  They know that Bash works.  They also know
that at any time it is possible for a version of /bin/sh (not the
abstract shell, but the particular instance installed on a particular
platform) to bite them in the butt because of the innumerable
variations.  They avoid that by using Bash on Unix, command.com on
Windows (I think) and rc on Plan 9.

Byron's rc is a straw man, but it illustrates the conditions in the
wild.

++L