On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Greg Reagle <greg.rea...@umbc.edu> wrote: > On 04/23/2016 09:38 AM, Kamil Cholewiński wrote: >> >> I don't like rc since there are two incompatible implementations, one is >> the real thing and the other is actually usable for interactive use. > > > I like Plan 9's rc a lot, for scripting. I don't think it sucks at all. I > think it is good and more elegant than /bin/sh. It can be obtained via > 9base [1] or Plan 9 Port [2]. I don't use it interactively though due to > its lack of history. > > Indeed there is another implementation of rc [3] that is better to use > interactively (since it has history), but it is incompatible with Plan 9 rc, > unfortunately, and the author is not interested in changing it to be > compatible [4]. The difference is just one item of syntax, but it's enough > to be a major incompatibility. > > I use fish interactively. It probably sucks as far as its SLOC, but I like > it anyway. > > [1] http://tools.suckless.org/9base > [2] https://github.com/9fans/plan9port > [3] https://github.com/rakitzis/rc > [4] https://github.com/rakitzis/rc/issues/19 >
There are shell wrappers around scripting languages, like Python's piper. Surely there is something similar for lisp-like languages or "suckless" scripting languages (AFAIK, only C is acceptable here, with rc coming to the closest thing to a real scripting that's acceptable). If I had things my way, we could use any language we want, but standard data structures that can be passed between programs. IIRC, this exists out there too.
