One last thing:
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Kurt H Maier <kh...@intma.in> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:50:27PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
>> You are conflating bootstrapping the language with the language's
>> build system. The go command is actually quite nice.
>
> Also, the go command is useless unless the bootstrap build system can
> construct it. I'm not conflating anything, I'm just not talking about
> the build system you like.
I don't *like* it, I just don't *hate* it. Two very different concepts.
>> The use of bash in Go is tiny. Why fixate on it when you could go
>> build something useful, instead?
>
> Because a corrected build system would be useful to me.
Well, if you could explain a) how it's currently broken, and b) how a
'corrected' version would be useful, others might be more sympathetic
to your concerns. From most perspectives, it doesn't appear broken at
all; it works fine, it's just not what you would have done.
> Is this a complicated concept?
No. But it's basic tact and consideration to fully explain oneself if
one expects a useful response.
>> Evidence suggests otherwise.
>
> I have yet to see such.
*shrug* Don't know what to tell you, then.
>> Anyway, I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a
>> pissing match with some random person on the Internet about Go's use
>> of bash. If it's such a serious problem for you, well, I hope you
>> figure out a way to work around it. If not, then I don't know what to
>> tell you. In either case, good luck!
>
> I wish you would have ascertained you had nothing to tell me earlier in
> the thread. Thank you for your support.
I somehow get the feeling that few people have anything to tell you
that you're willing to listen to.
- Dan C.
