From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikXgLVGU5gawTjXw9ETkyQ6PAC1cg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <86fwpz55nj.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
	<257867.782e4d7b.wsc0.mx@tumtum.plumbweb.net>
	<5ddd9deccbea5e8556dfc0c228b63311@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<BANLkTik=fh5sAr5cR+PRNGD+LJETeOgyqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<86vcythf8h.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
	<BANLkTi=Lhkqh2dAhg+j5s6i33zCx3GJmfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikp1+FD6kC5HTq0tvfXeFQ03ySGfw@mail.gmail.com>
	<BANLkTikXgLVGU5gawTjXw9ETkyQ6PAC1cg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue,  5 Apr 2011 18:04:44 +0200
Message-ID: <BANLkTikHfubX7w=iuUEM6pki7NMq_XcpaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rudolf Sykora <rudolf.sykora@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [9fans] Making read(1) an rc(1) builtin?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c9f054c6-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On 5 April 2011 17:52, Jacob Todd <jaketodd422@gmail.com> wrote:
> This whole discussion has been absurd.
>
> On Apr 5, 2011 11:50 AM, "ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This discussion is interesting.
>>
>> "rc is not as good a shell as bash because it lacks built-ins that
>> make it a good programming language for writing an acme extension"
>>
>> Did I summarizer it correctly? Once summarized, am I the only one who
>> finds it absurd?
>>
>> ron

No. The discussion was not absurd.
And no, Ron's summary was not a summary.

Ruda