Re: [9fans] rc vs sh

[Uriel <uriel@berlinblue.org>]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Kurt H Maier <khm-9@intma.in> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:48:39PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>>
>> 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.

Go currently builds out of the box on Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, Windows,
and Plan 9 (and probably more places), I don't know many build systems
that can do that.

The build system was basically replaced by Russ since you last looked at it.

The remaining few bash lines are there basically for historical
reasons, because Russ (or anyone else) could not be bothered to
replace them with Go or C code which is what is used in the rest of
the build system.

Which again, makes this whole thread even more ridiculous, as in the
time you people have spent whining about it you could have removed the
last remaining lines of bash from the Go build system. But guess what?
Nobody really cares.

This whole argument has turned into a typical bike shed, everyone has
an opinion because it is such a trivial matter that anyone can easily
argue about it for hours.

>>
>> 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.

Nobody has volunteered to do it, so to blame Russ for actually solving
a problem nobody else has bothered to work on is very unfair.




>> 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.

Go is not "still evolving", Go 1 was released a while ago, and there
are absolutely no plans to change the language for the foreseeable
future.

Whatever it is used for "web shit" or "real programs" doesn't change
the language in any way.

And if you think ken can be persuaded to change the language based on
what people building "web shit" wants, then you really don't know ken
much.