From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20120830093451.GA424@polynum.com> From: Dan Cross Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:05:42 +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: b400ab60-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 [Special to Lucio: Email to proxima.alt.za from Google's SMTP servers is failing; it looks like they're listed in rbl.proxima.alt.za.] On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Lucio De Re wrote: >> But as I said, this is not to argument about Go developers' choices: >> they do as they see fit > > I think their philosophy is sound, not just an arbitrary choice. The > alternative is a commitment that can only be fulfilled by applying > resources best utilised on the focal issue. > > For example, the kerTeX installation relies on an ftp client that > accepts a URL on the command line. My UBUNTU installation has no such > ftp command. That leaves you with the choice between driving the more > conventional ftp program with a small script (not nice, but it can be > done) or require (as you do for LEX and YACC) that wget be installed > everywhere, not just where ftp isn't of the neat BSD variety. > > It's a choice you make on behalf of the user and you can be sure that > a significant portion of your target market would prefer the opposite. > A very small portion will also stand up and criticise you if you go > the wget rule, whereas it is much harder to challenge the use of ftp > with a script. However, of the two, wget is more robust. > > That's the way it is. Sometimes one has the luxury of doing things > properly, sometimes it is more critical to arrive at a result first. > A healthy ethos would encourage tidying up behind one, but the costs > are seldom justified in the present development climate. Future > conditions may be different and perhaps we can then all feel justified > in chipping in to tidy up behind our less tidy pioneers. Very well put. - Dan C.