From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 36bd7a7b for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 09:18:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 118389E3B3; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:18:02 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C4A29E39B; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:17:32 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=cheswick.com header.i=@cheswick.com header.b=VSSAZDP9; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 757959E39B; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:17:29 +1000 (AEST) X-Greylist: delayed 541 seconds by postgrey-1.35 at minnie.tuhs.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:17:28 AEST Received: from mail.coastal.cheswick.com (mail.coastal.cheswick.com [50.247.74.11]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 494589E399 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 19:17:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: from [192.168.0.137] (crbknf0213w-142-134-210-157.pppoe-dynamic.high-speed.nl.bellaliant.net [142.134.210.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.coastal.cheswick.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0519122B12; Fri, 13 Jul 2018 02:08:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.coastal.cheswick.com 0519122B12 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=cheswick.com; s=mail; t=1531472906; bh=XFX6L/sUT+5gex9KigdPWqPvJNc+/U51HB5NlWzLX6g=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=VSSAZDP9ZIqBaz2gnklNmzg4x/8V9gMmXD4Qx+NXElHOQF8Gr91m5DRgn5e4REEAg Sn4cMSQ70UuUCvINvhGOYQM5MGF/xdd2sZdatyntJYmOCxnrKt3l0UQY2r6bjcaKur gYGn+nQlicKT4Epm6+GKmHHZIBE71eopPZFW0IH7iQsME229JiMda3lFMDN8X7dC6n dDfiTu97TL2b2JFesIUxT5rfM6nhr5nNHxmPSV7B//LjFzsqcVu6BoVuNjQorDJhNz A1Ew6ChblfLapTlZq5rYtjfuXocC5LAzoGO4QLltdjzRdLbo0IAY9dR5C5EJwHJjCX q6l/3Xxx0v3DA== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4FC89F33-A3C3-446E-AF7B-5B7881467760 Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) From: "ches@Cheswick.com" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (15F79) In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2018 06:38:15 -0230 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <2DB739F2-9770-4529-B649-4E45D0B99F67@cheswick.com> References: <3386fb80b5282f7bca0ccf34252182c2398232c1@webmail.yaccman.com> <5D272962-0063-4D28-B551-F381D3D10239@alchemistowl.org> <009101d4112f$8bb30f50$a3192df0$@ronnatalie.com> <1531153839.3991054.1434840984.210C4B3F@webmail.messagingengine.com> <201807100554.w6A5s0VM005631@freefriends.org> <201807100719.w6A7Jx9V014856@freefriends.org> To: Noel Hunt Subject: Re: [TUHS] Any Good dmr Anecdotes? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --Apple-Mail-4FC89F33-A3C3-446E-AF7B-5B7881467760 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am a fan of these routines, and use the regularly, but I didn=E2=80=99t wr= ite them. Message by ches. Tappos by iPad. > On Jul 10, 2018, at 9:50 PM, Noel Hunt wrote: >=20 > I'm surprised why anyone would bother with these routines > anymore, given the startling simplicity of Plan9's arg(3). > One stands in awe of such simplicity. I believe it was > William Cheswick who designed it, but I may be wrong. >=20 >=20 >> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:25 PM wrote: >> RFS vs. NFS and sockets vs. STREAMS were much more serious; they were >> about the directions Unix would take going forward, where interoperabilit= y >> (RFS/NFS) and code portability (sockets/STREAMS) were big either/or issue= s. >>=20 >> Had AT&T been smarter about its licensing, both RFS and STREAMS might >> have "won", but they weren't, and those technologies have all but >> disappeared. >>=20 >> GNU getopt can be used in a source-compatible way with POSIX getopt; >> having long options is up to the programmer. I agree, there were >> aesthetic arguments, altough long options have mostly "won". I'm about >> as long-time a Unix aficianado as anyone else here, and for many things >> I find long options easier to remember than short ones. >>=20 >> (To their credit, at least initially, the GNU project asked its developer= s >> to use the same long options in all programs for operations that were >> the same.) >>=20 >> Arnold >>=20 >>=20 >> George Michaelson wrote: >>=20 >> > ... and then somebody GNUified it. I seem to recall three huge >> > flamewars in UUCP days: RFS vs NFS, STREAMS (the original) vs sockets, >> > and getopt >> > >> > --no -noo --nooo=3Dplease --dont-make-me=3Ddo-that >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:54 PM, wrote: >> > > Clem Cole wrote: >> > > >> > >> BY the time dmr adds stdio, it was >> > >> still early enough in the life to displace the randomness for someth= ing as >> > >> important as I/O, whereas lack of use of something.like getopt would= not >> > >> become clearly deficient until after widespread success. >> > > >> > > I think "widespread access" is more like it for getopt. Getopt dates= >> > > to 1980; it was in System III (I just checked). That's only about two= years >> > > after V7 which was circa 1978. >> > > >> > > Here are the dates: >> > > >> > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 arnold arnold 1073 Apr 11 1980 usr/src/lib/libc/pdp11/g= en/getopt.c >> > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 arnold arnold 2273 May 16 1980 usr/src/man/man3/getopt.= 3c >> > > >> > > But the world outside the Bell System didn't have System III. Getopt >> > > didn't become "popular" until System V or so, and became much easier t= o >> > > adopt once Henry Spencer published his public domain rewrite of the c= ode >> > > and man page. >> > > >> > > Just a nit, (:-) >> > > >> > > Arnold --Apple-Mail-4FC89F33-A3C3-446E-AF7B-5B7881467760 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am a fan of these routines, and use the r= egularly, but I didn=E2=80=99t write them.

Message by ches. Tappos by iPad.


On Jul 10= , 2018, at 9:50 PM, Noel Hunt <noe= l.hunt@gmail.com> wrote:

=
I'm surprised why anyone would bother with these routines
<= div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:monospace,monospace">anymor= e, given the startling simplicity of Plan9's arg(3).
One stands in awe of su= ch simplicity. I believe it was
William Cheswick who designed it, but I may b= e wrong.


On T= ue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:25 PM <arnold@= skeeve.com> wrote:
RFS vs. NFS a= nd sockets vs. STREAMS were much more serious; they were
about the directions Unix would take going forward, where interoperability (RFS/NFS) and code portability (sockets/STREAMS) were big either/or issues.<= br>
Had AT&T been smarter about its licensing, both RFS and STREAMS might have "won", but they weren't, and those technologies have all but
disappeared.

GNU getopt can be used in a source-compatible way with POSIX getopt;
having long options is up to the programmer.  I agree, there were
aesthetic arguments, altough long options have mostly "won".  I'm about=
as long-time a Unix aficianado as anyone else here, and for many things
I find long options easier to remember than short ones.

(To their credit, at least initially, the GNU project asked its developers to use the same long options in all programs for operations that were
the same.)

Arnold


George Michaelson <= ggm@algebras.org> wrote:

> ... and then somebody GNUified it. I seem to recall three huge
> flamewars in UUCP days: RFS vs NFS, STREAMS (the original) vs sockets,<= br> > and getopt
>
> --no -noo --nooo=3Dplease --dont-make-me=3Ddo-that
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:54 PM,  <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
> > Clem Cole <c= lemc@ccc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> BY the time dmr adds stdio, it was
> >> still early enough in the life to displace the randomness for s= omething as
> >> important as I/O, whereas lack of use of something.like getopt= would not
> >> become clearly deficient until after widespread success.
> >
> > I think "widespread access" is more like it for getopt.  Geto= pt dates
> > to 1980; it was in System III (I just checked). That's only about t= wo years
> > after V7 which was circa 1978.
> >
> > Here are the dates:
> >
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 arnold arnold 1073 Apr 11  1980 usr/src/lib/libc= /pdp11/gen/getopt.c
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 arnold arnold 2273 May 16  1980 usr/src/man/man3= /getopt.3c
> >
> > But the world outside the Bell System didn't have System III. Geto= pt
> > didn't become "popular" until System V or so, and became much easi= er to
> > adopt once Henry Spencer published his public domain rewrite of th= e code
> > and man page.
> >
> > Just a nit, (:-)
> >
> > Arnold
= --Apple-Mail-4FC89F33-A3C3-446E-AF7B-5B7881467760--