From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon May 27 02:10:44 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98646217;
 Mon, 27 May 2013 02:10:44 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.9])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58D809FF;
 Mon, 27 May 2013 02:10:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
 by mail.netplex.net (8.14.6/8.14.6/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id r4R2Abr9022709;
 Sun, 26 May 2013 22:10:37 -0400
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net)
X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by
 milter-greylist-4.4.1 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.9]);
 Sun, 26 May 2013 22:10:38 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 22:10:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD installers and future direction
In-Reply-To: <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D7201F61FE0@ltcfiswmsgmb21>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1305262202001.24578@sea.ntplx.net>
References: <51A0DC3F.9030301@cran.org.uk>
 <CAK6u07WDZrWU4dnrBzQGYf+pbmibK7KxSUZyvie8jJQ1SMODuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <51A1025A.2020607@cran.org.uk> <51A14445.4060305@freebsd.org>
 <51A15EDF.6050600@erdgeist.org>
 <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D7201F5B2E7@ltcfiswmsgmb26>
 <51A29A5F.7010106@erdgeist.org>
 <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D7201F61FE0@ltcfiswmsgmb21>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>,
 Dirk Engling <erdgeist@erdgeist.org>,
 Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
 <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 02:10:44 -0000

On Mon, 27 May 2013, Teske, Devin wrote:
>
> I don't think there's any reason why we have to write it in C if we can write
> it in sh.

I don't really care one way or the other (C or sh), but
I can say that I can understand(*) well structured C a lot
better than well structured sh.  Having something more
strongly typed certainly helps understanding.

(*) Assuming some level of complexity (I know that's
     subjective).

-- 
DE