[FoRK] Should Exist: a new UNIX shell
<jbone at place.org> on
Mon Jun 4 06:45:16 PDT 2007
On Jun 3, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Lucas Gonze wrote:
> On 6/3/07, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>> doing so, at least once a day I find myself forced to actually drop
>> down to some other tool just because I have some relatively simple
>> --- yet more complicated than is suitable for e.g. bc --- numerical
>> or otherwise complex computation I need to do. Or I need a data
>> structure more complicated than delimited line-oriented records. Or
>> I've got to join data that's coming from two different places /
>> APIs / tools in two different formats.
> Fair enough. But I don't see enough of a pattern between these
> examples to know how the shell should change.
> A thing about the shell is that it's a crazy ball of mud built up over
> 30 years or so. If you read the bash source you'll find things like
> patches to handle the limited physical bandwidth in a VT100. (I
> realize that on FoRK there are probably at least ten people who have
> read the source already, very likely including yourself, Bone).
> There's a lot of value in that, so any solution with a reasonable
> chance of success needs to either be a huge improvement or build on
> top of the original.
You do realize that bash isn't the original by a long shot, yes? I
haven't looked at the bash source in some time (since trying to
figure out how to hack variable disciplines into it several years
ago) but you're exactly right in that it's a giant hairball. But
it's a hairball that's been stolen in bits and pieces from lots of
I realize there's some value in all that, and all the other shells
too; the question is the question of any long-term legacy --- is the
value in the lessons learned or in the way those lessons are
instantiated in code. Particularly for user-facing code, there's
often a point where the value shifts from the latter to the former...
More information about the FoRK