From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 14:14:52 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <50204b4f64941301a658e83f9bf6d1be@coraid.com> In-Reply-To: References: <773C7824-C50D-49EE-9CF8-74E91515F2F3@corpus-callosum.com> <201011051807.53647.dexen.devries@gmail.com> <201011051832.14379.dexen.devries@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 development Topicbox-Message-UUID: 782daf6c-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > > -- and then traversing it in a sensible order. How's that for daily use > > shell? > > > > > Why is a shell that can generate acyclic digraphs of dependencies bad? > Someone clearly found a use for it at some point or it wouldn't have been > done. it is silly bloat if it's not an essential part of the shell. but (as andrey has noted) if you were to replace the machinery behind these normal shell dag builders ('&', '&&', '||', if, '|', 'and '`{}') with something general enough to replace mk, you'd be on to something. personally, i think getting the syntax right would be the hard part. > I guess one could try to use make as an init system for services in a > configuration, but I don't see why not having those features in a shell is > better than having those features in a shell. that's been done with mk for linux by a rose hullman student. it was faster than some of the fancy purpose- built tools due to better parallism. see the list archives. - erik