On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 11:08:45AM +0100, uki wrote:
> There is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in
> ten thousand lines of C.
Agreed. However bash is abominable, and even plain Bourne shell is
fairly hideous. I hear `rc` is decent. C is mildly decent at heart.
I desi
There is more Unix-nature in one line of shell script than there is in
ten thousand lines of C.
Pozdrawiam,
Łukasz Gruner
2013/1/2 Sam Watkins :
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 02:13:14PM +1100, Daniel Bryan wrote:
>> Bash is my go-to for system scripting, but for something that will run
>> 100% of the
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 11:03:08PM -0500, Jacob Todd wrote:
> I was the others in the thread to unsubscribe. I suggest you take a few
> more classes on the english language.
s/was/want/
s/english/English/
s/Jacob Todd/some unfriendly guy/
Or, was it off-topic to talk about this here?
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 11:03:08PM -0500, Jacob Todd wrote:
> I was the others in the thread to unsubscribe. I suggest you take a few
> more classes on the english language.
Perhaps if you had quoted someone it would have been less of a non
sequitur.
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 09:36:29PM -0500, Corey Thomasson wrote:
> Implementing an entire userland in a library could only lead to a lot more
> sucking.
Yes, maybe it would.
On the other hand I think it can be good to use the "software tools" /
"flow based programming" approach at a smaller scale
I was the others in the thread to unsubscribe. I suggest you take a few
more classes on the english language.
On Jan 1, 2013 10:53 PM, "Kai Hendry" wrote:
> On 2 January 2013 10:58, Jacob Todd wrote:
> > Please, unsubscribe from the list.
>
> Tried using the Gmail unsubscribe UI?
> http://s.nata
On 2 January 2013 10:58, Jacob Todd wrote:
> Please, unsubscribe from the list.
Tried using the Gmail unsubscribe UI?
http://s.natalian.org/2013-01-02/1357098599_1366x768.png
Please, unsubscribe from the list.
Thank you.
On Jan 1, 2013 8:02 PM, "Daniel Bryan" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 10:01:10AM +1100, Sam Watkins wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 02:13:14PM +1100, Daniel Bryan wrote:
> > > Bash is my go-to for system scripting, but for something that will run
> > > 100% of the time on my system for year
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 12:04:21PM +1100, Daniel Bryan wrote:
> On the other hand, it's not the fact that C is compiled that makes it
> more efficient than the interepreted bash - it's the fact that C is just
> reading files and filling buffers, whereas Bash is doing a dozen
> fork+execs.
Yes. It
On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 10:01:10AM +1100, Sam Watkins wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 02:13:14PM +1100, Daniel Bryan wrote:
> > Bash is my go-to for system scripting, but for something that will run
> > 100% of the time on my system for years it's not over-engineering to do
> > it efficiently.
>
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 02:13:14PM +1100, Daniel Bryan wrote:
> Bash is my go-to for system scripting, but for something that will run
> 100% of the time on my system for years it's not over-engineering to do
> it efficiently.
It would be nice to extend C with suitable function and macro libraries
12 matches
Mail list logo
