Suckless sh [Was: Re: [dev] New utility]

Greetings,

Patrick Haller wrote:
> On 2011-09-25 03:19, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
>> ocaml;wu (ocaml; won't use)
>
> use the bringer_obsolete.bash [1] from the package?
>
> why ocaml;wu? because it's outside the C/sh stack, or ?

in the first ecumenical council of the suckless church, C and sh
were defined as the languages of pureness. This forbids using any-
thing else for describing our words.

Just a comparison: (Please use eight space tabs, for complete
holiness.)

Package Installation size

-- New style languages --
ocaml-3.12.1 166552,00 K
ruby-1.9.2_p290 18828,00 K
python-3.2.1 79340,00 K
ghc-7.0.3 621383,00 K
openjdk6-6.b22_1.10.3 119742,00 K

-- Bastardisation of C --
gcc-4.6.1 73222,00 K
glibc-2.14 34752,00 K

-- Interpreters of sh --
dash-0.5.7 164,00 K
bash-4.2.010 3672,00 K

-- For comparion: A whole OS --
emacs-23.3.a 96660,00 K

As you can see, is Java, Ocaml nearly as big as Emacs OS, but GHC
is six times the Emacs OS.

All we need is a better syntax for sh, with the expressiveness of
the new style languages like Python and without the whitespace
nightmare, which forces people to use »simpler alternatives«. This
should be doable in the size of dash. Rc does not fit very well,
because it is missing mass adoption and has some ugliness in the
various implementations across Plan 9 and the other OSes, that
might exist.

Why the fuck does everything »include batteries« (or as interpreted
on ghc: »include an OS«)?

Comments and ideas for an sh alternative, which sucks less, are
welcome.

Sincerely,

Christoph Lohmann
Received on Sun Sep 25 2011 - 13:07:52 CEST