From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:44:19 +0100 From: Eris Discordia To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <5EF90081E9B1D745047218E6@[192.168.1.2]> In-Reply-To: <3aaafc130904072004v77277c42ic7f7447eeb8d7e36@mail.gmail.com> References: <1239082320.2778.20.camel@katy-laptop> <140e7ec30904070053p20e60905y19a031837edc1931@mail.gmail.com> <3AB58E51F3A5C561C4B065E3@192.168.1.2> <140e7ec30904070731v7365aea2o7753be79bbaab8ea@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10904070809v2c536289vfa8485aabef7f2f0@mail.gmail.com> <3aaafc130904071257h4c7004c2ub7111f09055a9d8c@mail.gmail.com> <3aaafc130904072004v77277c42ic7f7447eeb8d7e36@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [9fans] a bit OT, programming style question Topicbox-Message-UUID: d6c48a5c-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > 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=20 the past kept with all good intentions: backward compatibility, and heeding = the diversity of hardware and configuration that still exists out there. 5=20 of the other 18 lines are completely specific to my installation. That=20 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=20 have a "constituency" to tend to. They aren't carefree researchers with=20 high ambitions. --On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:04 PM -0400 "J.R. Mauro"=20 wrote: > On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Eris Discordia > 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" >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Eris Discordia >>> 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 >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 2009/4/7 Eris Discordia : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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)? >>>>> >>>>> =C2=A0No. >>>>> -sqweek >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --On Tuesday, April 07, 2009 8:09 AM -0700 ron minnich >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Eris Discordia >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Like... readline(3)? >>>>> >>>>> one hopes not. >>>>> >>>>> ron >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >