Re: [9fans] a bit OT, programming style question

[Eris Discordia <eris.discordia@gmail.com>]

> Try env | wc -l in bash. Now tell me why that value is so big.

> [root@host ~]# env | wc -l
> 	37
> [root@host ~]#

Is that very high? I don't even know if it is or how it would mean anything 
bad (or good for that matter) assuming it were high. Not to mention, it's a 
very bad metric. Because:

> [root@host ~]# env | wc -c
> 	1404
> [root@host ~]#

Most of it in the 19 lines for one TERMCAP variable. Strictly a relic of 
the past kept with all good intentions: backward compatibility, and heeding 
the diversity of hardware and configuration that still exists out there. 5 
of the other 18 lines are completely specific to my installation. That 
leaves us with 13 short lines.

Quite a considerable portion of UNIX-like systems, FreeBSD in this case, is 
the way it is not because the developers are stupid, rather because they 
have a "constituency" to tend to. They aren't carefree researchers with 
high ambitions.

--On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:04 PM -0400 "J.R. Mauro" 
<jrm8005@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Eris Discordia <eris.discordia@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> The man page *does* say it's too big and slow. So does the bash
>>> manpage. And getting readline to do anything sane is about as fun as
>>> screwing around with a terminfo file.
>>
>> A bad implementation is not a bad design. And, in fact, the badness of
>> the implementation is even questionable in the light of bash's normal
>> behavior or the working .inputrc files I've been using for some time.
>
> Behavior is not indicative of good design. It just means that the
> bandaids heaped upon bash (and X11, and...) make it work acceptably.
>
> Try env | wc -l in bash. Now tell me why that value is so big.
>
>>
>> Anyway, thanks for the info.
>>
>> --On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 3:57 PM -0400 "J.R. Mauro"
>> <jrm8005@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Eris Discordia
>>> <eris.discordia@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I see. But seriously, readline does handle bindings and line editing
>>>> for bash. Except it's a function instead of a program and you think
>>>> it's a bad idea.
>>>
>>> The man page *does* say it's too big and slow. So does the bash
>>> manpage. And getting readline to do anything sane is about as fun as
>>> screwing around with a terminfo file.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 10:31 PM +0800 sqweek <sqweek@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2009/4/7 Eris Discordia <eris.discordia@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keyboard
>>>>>>>> bindings for example; why couldn't they be handled by a program
>>>>>>>> that just does keyboard bindings + line editing, and writes
>>>>>>>> finalized lines to the shell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like... readline(3)?
>>>>>
>>>>>  No.
>>>>> -sqweek
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:09 AM -0700 ron minnich
>>>> <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Eris Discordia
>>>>> <eris.discordia@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like... readline(3)?
>>>>>
>>>>> one hopes not.
>>>>>
>>>>> ron
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>