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,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE 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 99dc9b38 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 00:22:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 454FD9E2B9; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:22:51 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8ADE9E274; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:21:21 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=lKkgpz1K; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 976959E274; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:21:18 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-it0-f49.google.com (mail-it0-f49.google.com [209.85.214.49]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3343E9E273 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:21:17 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-it0-f49.google.com with SMTP id w16-v6so1277209ita.0 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:21:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=fNLvQ9acjY+Rj1KlgOQo9YB3OZ3dMklXcrcT6juVMWg=; b=lKkgpz1KYQWPQn5EV7LdmQ6QEp1Hh4fy30DKm+U0GUG1f6FfkFsh/VRgjsS2FRqkVf 6YgzjPJW9DH+4xpm+0jC/P5pRkgtQOj6NFahI6/5kSliqDfCLQ9so0+H++ZNrP6RQtCi FexESDPfiSbap5fatpZ1bVTAJL3QhGdGCj8bHYBgfiE1SLxwql4PlJanggX2Mqd2QSto VM3eirdqzh5CUEWMzA1IyFjg5kwIubUy3xJ2GUL9/mdmyP+M4sj4le8kbMEPetYsreJX Rkrqdd0RR4jV2owjBjmqceZTfN1zDUtgolnL8abJleUu3/8cmlxZs6QoLxlM4PHxFaOq 9GqA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=fNLvQ9acjY+Rj1KlgOQo9YB3OZ3dMklXcrcT6juVMWg=; b=bGfu6xG9+PaLTUvDo+juNCgakiqKA/JfFn7yjIOTVjR0nrSQDe4fdfhcNe8Ts/69S0 IKWZLSeW3u4fFZA95+VoOVKBYeJLgL4A2Y2vQX8Evyym1z8BGTbiUbcojXVlvmtl7ysr OfUyKzQyBy5tUX3hSzV8bHMLFLwXErYaEmmvNwggnJw6qvCjZa8FQpbn6oHm9jhNEgBZ sj/DS89MrdwHGGFacHy5YzTCIrInza1pjeQ3D6SXWLuSQj5rEsQYK3H4ekP6tAFJvNBK dc9yMgGp+sHK/nFkGUdTnP+9UaxHEcUdkhyCK572eN1Nius8fBonQ787DPT4rkZ8mwEW 6iOg== X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E33Szi34EypQ8M3mc5bAHKrQg9ltKdhS3pmwMLebH7ikUUqHxeM H2efXKZYu0cAPq9dZ0zmTrb7SRSe4G7VSk0TxGbTDg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpe2yspTY8+WejKR+7a13YB3FcTBaOg5q2UNcZNHkmsdWLncRCqG8nzRpWkvU3MApemiLUbomcKi3uz/Wv0FFxo= X-Received: by 2002:a02:579a:: with SMTP id b26-v6mr22505902jad.107.1531268476269; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:21:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 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> In-Reply-To: <201807100719.w6A7Jx9V014856@freefriends.org> From: Noel Hunt Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 10:20:50 +1000 Message-ID: To: TUHS main list Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009578510570ae3929" 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: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --0000000000009578510570ae3929 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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. 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 interoperability > (RFS/NFS) and code portability (sockets/STREAMS) were big either/or issues. > > 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 wrote: > > > ... 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=please --dont-make-me=do-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 > something 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/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. Getopt > > > didn't become "popular" until System V or so, and became much easier to > > > adopt once Henry Spencer published his public domain rewrite of the > code > > > and man page. > > > > > > Just a nit, (:-) > > > > > > Arnold > --0000000000009578510570ae3929 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm surprised why anyone would bother with these routines<= /div>
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.


On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:25 PM <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
RFS vs. NFS and sockets vs. STREAMS were much more serious; they= were
about the directions Unix would take going forward, where interoperability<= br> (RFS/NFS) and code portability (sockets/STREAMS) were big either/or issues.=

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.=C2=A0 I agree, there were
aesthetic arguments, altough long options have mostly "won".=C2= =A0 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<= br> 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,=
> and getopt
>
> --no -noo --nooo=3Dplease --dont-make-me=3Ddo-that
>
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 3:54 PM,=C2=A0 <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:
> > Clem Cole <= clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
> >
> >> BY the time dmr adds stdio, it was
> >> still early enough in the life to displace the randomness for= something as
> >> important as I/O, whereas lack of use of something.like getop= t would not
> >> become clearly deficient until after widespread success.
> >
> > I think "widespread access" is more like it for getopt.= =C2=A0 Getopt dates
> > to 1980; it was in System III (I just checked). That's only a= bout two years
> > after V7 which was circa 1978.
> >
> > Here are the dates:
> >
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 arnold arnold 1073 Apr 11=C2=A0 1980 usr/src/lib/lib= c/pdp11/gen/getopt.c
> > -rw-rw-r-- 1 arnold arnold 2273 May 16=C2=A0 1980 usr/src/man/man= 3/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 b= ecame much easier to
> > adopt once Henry Spencer published his public domain rewrite of t= he code
> > and man page.
> >
> > Just a nit, (:-)
> >
> > Arnold
--0000000000009578510570ae3929--