Le 17/02/2015 01:23, Isaac Dunham a écrit :
But shell scripts can be written well, and writing a shell script to
solve a problem beats writing a custom config to handle how one tool
does it, and then not being able to apply that to another platform...
or an older version of the same distro. And so I would rather use
something that *expects* shell scripts than something that tolerates
them for "backwards compatability". And I'm certainly not interested
in using a custom config because RedHat's employees can't understand
how to write fast shell scripts. Why should I expect them to write
efficient and safe C if they can't manage efficient and safe sh? "The
price of reliability is the pursuit of the utmost simplicity." Thanks,
Isaac Dunham
Isaac, you already wrote that in another ML, and I agree with you
so much that I now explicitely use this method: have as many
command-line switches as necessary in the application and invoke it
through a shell script which sets them all. Everybody reading the script
understands what it is doing. It's more user-friendly than using a
different configuration proto-language for every new application.
Didier
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
