On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Greg Reagle <greg.reagle_AT_umbc.edu> wrote:
> On 04/23/2016 09:38 AM, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
>>
>> I don't like rc since there are two incompatible implementations, one is
>> the real thing and the other is actually usable for interactive use.
>
>
> I like Plan 9's rc a lot, for scripting. I don't think it sucks at all. I
> think it is good and more elegant than /bin/sh. It can be obtained via
> 9base [1] or Plan 9 Port [2]. I don't use it interactively though due to
> its lack of history.
>
> Indeed there is another implementation of rc [3] that is better to use
> interactively (since it has history), but it is incompatible with Plan 9 rc,
> unfortunately, and the author is not interested in changing it to be
> compatible [4]. The difference is just one item of syntax, but it's enough
> to be a major incompatibility.
>
> I use fish interactively. It probably sucks as far as its SLOC, but I like
> it anyway.
>
> [1] http://tools.suckless.org/9base
> [2] https://github.com/9fans/plan9port
> [3] https://github.com/rakitzis/rc
> [4] https://github.com/rakitzis/rc/issues/19
>
There are shell wrappers around scripting languages, like Python's
piper. Surely there is something similar for lisp-like languages or
"suckless" scripting languages (AFAIK, only C is acceptable here, with
rc coming to the closest thing to a real scripting that's acceptable).
If I had things my way, we could use any language we want, but
standard data structures that can be passed between programs. IIRC,
this exists out there too.
Received on Sat Apr 23 2016 - 19:47:57 CEST