From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120828153036.GA11005@intma.in> References: <20120828141332.GA10058@intma.in> <6af219d70f9551dee8d013e5c34a255f@proxima.alt.za> <20120828150521.GA10731@intma.in> <20120828153036.GA11005@intma.in> From: Dan Cross Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 21:15:35 +0530 Message-ID: To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [9fans] rc vs sh Topicbox-Message-UUID: b13bc72a-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:48:39PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote: >> Wonderful! Please point me to your new programming language so I can >> have a look? > > I don't think it would do you any good, since you are apparently unable > to differentiate between programming languages and build systems. Oh no, I can't. Please, by all means, point me to whatever it is that you have produced that demonstrates your prowess in this area so that I can learn more. >> So are you saying that because they use bash to build the system, the >> language is shitty? Or just the build system is shitty? > > I have other issues with Go as a language, but the build system is > unmitigated shit. Irrelevant. >> Writing a shell script is easy. Writing a shell script to build a >> non-trivial piece of software across $n$ different platforms is hard. > > And yet people do it all the time. Irrelevant. >> To put it another way, why not cut the cord? Because it takes time >> away from doing something they consider more important. > > Incorrect. There's a whole world of people out there; some of them > would be willing to build and maintain an elegant, portable shell > script. That's the point of having an open development process, I > thought. I understand the need for the core devs to focus on the task > at hand: language building. It is idiotic not to delegate the build > system to someone willing and able to devote the time to it. Not the way that community is currently set up, so irrelevant. >> More generally, if your impression of Go as a language ("Typical go >> shit...") is based on what shell they chose for the build script, then >> I'm not sure you have your priorities straight. > > Fortunately, your assessment of my priorities is meaningless. "Typical > Go shit" referred to the ceaseless lack of focus on quality endemic to a > schizophrenic community that was organized around a language without a > mission. Go is still evolving in two separate directions; one camp sees > it as yet another language for web shit, and one camp sees it as a real > programming language for actual programs. I long ago lost interest in > seeing who will eventually win, but in the meantime every bad decision > seems to have some chorus of supporters who take every piece of > criticism personally. *Those* are the people who need to examine their > priorities. And yet the produced the language, and people use it. But you clearly know better, so please, by all means, show me what you've produced that's useful that I can learn something from. - Dan C.