Re: [dev] Re: sbase

From: Anselm R Garbe <>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 07:39:49 +0100

On 26 May 2011 07:18, pancake <> wrote:
> What about cat and tac? I already pushed tac to 9base few time ago, but it was removed.. It fits better in sbase.

Afaik tac sucks more, as it is quite an arbitrary command, not part of
Plan 9 and can be imitated with a awk one liner like

awk '{a[i++]=$0} END {for (j=i-1; j>=0;) print a[j--] }'

As for sbase I'm still sceptical this is a good idea as it
re-implements perfectly sound 9base tools, but avoids the real tricky
ones such as rc, mk or awk.
In the end sbase adds up to the already highly diverse universe of
different Unix command implementations, and probably breaks here and
there as it will contain bugs as well. I mean it is a nice effort but
apart from having some busybox competitor the use is rather limited.

Instead I agree with Szabolcs that this idea of having a high level C
API that implements commonly used stuff like the allocatorz, dial(),
etc, seems more valuable.

Don't get me wrong, I think this sbase thing is a great excercise but
I really do believe there is more interesting stuff that we should
rather focus on.

I created 9base because I didn't need to reimplement every command and
because its source roots back to the real Unix inventors. So I expect
their code to be rather stable and sound. For scripts it seems perfect
to rely on 9base as it should behave equally regardless the underlying
OS (granted there were some issues the Szabolcs and others pointed to
with regards to the fmt implementation, but those will be resolved
can't really see the value of it.

Received on Thu May 26 2011 - 08:39:49 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu May 26 2011 - 08:48:03 CEST