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

On Sun, 25 Sep 2011 13:07:52 +0200
Christoph Lohmann <20h_AT_r-36.net> wrote:

> All we need is a better syntax for sh,
> 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.

There are only two implementations of rc that I know of, and one is
brain-damaged and best ignored. I've found it a remarkably elegant
language, although it is possible an even smoother shell could be
devised.

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

Because OSs aren't. The majority of the OS in modern unixes is a
collection of hacks outside the kernel -- specifically in the C
library, and the One True Way of utilizing those hacks is by dynamic
linking.

Regarding the sizes... okay, that table is shit^W^W takes some careful
thought to use. Source size is not considered (it inflates the emacs
figure hugely), nor is dynamic linking -- dash is heavily dependant on
glibc. You are also not considering debug symbols which likely inflate
the on-disk size of some of the entries while adding nothing to the
loaded size.

If you want to make some use of the table anyway, the Go tree (pulled
today) comes to 196592K including debug symbols and source code. Taking
both those into account I think it compares favourably with gcc+glibc.

Anyone know why ghc is that big? I'm having trouble figuring it out.
Received on Sun Sep 25 2011 - 14:06:57 CEST