On Wednesday 24 March 2010 9:11:21 am Ivan Voras wrote: > On 03/23/10 16:08, John Baldwin wrote: > > [snip - looks like a good utility, will probably use it instead of > mergemaster if it gets committed, like the idea about automated updates] > > > To that end, I wrote a new tool that I think does a decent job of solving > > these goals. > > Since the issue comes around very rarely, I assume there are not many > people who also get the shivers when they see a shell script (and then a > "posixy" /bin/sh shell script) more than a 100 lines long? :) > > Wouldn't it be nice to have a "blessed" (i.e. present-in-base) script > language interpreter with a syntax that has evolved since the 1970-ies? > (with a side-glance to C that *has* evolved since the K&R style).
"You can write Fortran in any language." If there are specific things in specific scripts that are poorly commented or implemented then I would work on fixing those. The same is true of the mountain of C code in the tree. Rewriting them in a different language will not automatically make them any better. "Whatever language you write in, your task as a programmer is to do the best you can with the tools at hand. A good programmer can overcome a poor language or a clumsy operating system, but even a great programming environment will not rescue a bad programmer." (Kernighan and Pike) -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"