From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jul 24 9:17: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7526137B401; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thuvia.demon.co.uk (thuvia.demon.co.uk [193.237.34.248]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B6DA43E4A; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:17:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk) Received: from dotar.thuvia.org (dotar.thuvia.org [10.0.0.4]) by phaidor.thuvia.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6OGH0b95514; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:17:00 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk) Received: from dotar.thuvia.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by dotar.thuvia.org (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g6OGGxVe027250; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:16:59 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from mark@dotar.thuvia.org) Received: (from mark@localhost) by dotar.thuvia.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g6OGGxjB027249; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:16:59 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:16:59 +0100 (BST) From: Mark Valentine Message-Id: <200207241616.g6OGGxjB027249@dotar.thuvia.org> In-Reply-To: <20020724135321.GB4475@gits.dyndns.org> X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 beta(5) 10/07/98) To: Cyrille Lefevre Subject: Re: Scripting languages (was: Re: Package system flaws?) Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" , Christian Weisgerber , freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > From: Cyrille Lefevre > Date: Wed 24 Jul, 2002 > Subject: Re: Scripting languages (was: Re: Package system flaws?) > On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:48:17PM +0100, Mark Valentine wrote: > > There are plenty to choose from, but there are currently no clear candidates > > for the base system. > > well, I have a very low knowledge about zsh, but it has many features > (maybe too much, IMHO) such as associative arrays and builtin dynamic > loading... Yes, it seems to have come a long way since I last looked at it years ago. I've installed it and I'm wading through the documentation. It seems to have the features we need, and the license, but I'm not sure if there could ever be agreement to get it in the base system, probably because it's another moving target - base system utilities generally want to to be small and stable. > personnaly, I prefer ksh over sh. unfortunately, ksh93 isn't usable > and ksh88 (or pdksh) are missing some stuffs like associative arrays, > builtin dynamic loading (pdksh), etc. Yes, it's a pity. Though I don't think I'd ever use ksh as an interactive shell (my fingers have absolute requirements on command history and completion due to early exposure to a hacked up sh, and it took bash long enough to grow enough options to emulate the behaviour - I'm going to see if I can get zsh to behave the way I need, though). I'm more interested in ksh as a possible way of extending sh's scripting functionality just enough to be useful, and in a "standard" way. Cheers, Mark. -- Mark Valentine, Thuvia Labs "Tigers will do ANYTHING for a tuna fish sandwich." Mark Valentine uses "We're kind of stupid that way." *munch* *munch* and endorses FreeBSD -- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message