From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=Lhkqh2dAhg+j5s6i33zCx3GJmfA@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>
Date: Tue,  5 Apr 2011 08:47:27 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTikp1+FD6kC5HTq0tvfXeFQ03ySGfw@mail.gmail.com>
From: ron minnich <rminnich@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: c9dab63e-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

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