From owner-freebsd-small Tue Oct 6 15:37:28 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA17535 for freebsd-small-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:37:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from smtp01.wxs.nl (smtp01.wxs.nl [195.121.6.61]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA17437 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:37:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from asmodai@wxs.nl) Received: from diabolique ([195.121.58.124]) by smtp01.wxs.nl (Netscape Messaging Server 3.6) with SMTP id AAA50E; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 00:36:58 +0200 Message-Id: X-Sender: skywise@pop.wxs.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Demo Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 23:37:35 +0200 To: "Christopher G. Petrilli" From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai Subject: Re: Command-line i/f Cc: FreeBSD Small In-Reply-To: <19981005141735.53074@amber.org> References: <199810051532.LAA10779@jhicks.glenatl.glenayre.com> <199810032345.TAA21910@whizzo.transsys.com> <199810051532.LAA10779@jhicks.glenatl.glenayre.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 20:17 05-10-98 , Christopher G. Petrilli wrote: >On Mon, Oct 05, 1998 at 11:32:42AM -0400, Jerry Hicks wrote: >> >> [snip: various arguments] >> >> Not necessarily... Quite a few mortals know how to code Forth. I have >> enjoyed a fair amount of success over the years introducing Forth to new >> programmers. > >This is really not a valid argument. Quite a few mortals know x86 >assembler, but that hardly makes it attractive I think the >reality is that RPN is totally foreign to most people, at least those >who don't keep a traditional HP calculator by their sides. Heh, depends on what it will be used for... It is small though ;) >> Anyone who used WordPerfect or bootstraps a late model Sun also qualifies as a >> user of a Forth system. > >Regardless, user is one thing, coder is a totally seperate thing. Very true, hence the fact that most *NIX users still have some affection/background with programming-related issues... And then there is the Linux 'l33t groups ;) >> > Why wouldn't something based on TCL be a better choice? Sysadmins are >> > probably more likely to be familiar with it (perhaps due to experience >> > with "expect"). It has a pretty reasonable syntax, and perhaps >> > a more familair procedural type model. >> >> I can see getting a complete Forth onto the PicoBSD floppy within 8K or so. > >This is a bonus in so much as it presumes that it's needed. Aye, we have to keep thinking small, yet useable... >> We can't do that with TCL. Dunno... Might all be dependant on the amount of supportcode that makes it into the 'kernel' as well as the understanding of the language by it's coder/user. >> I'll bet we will find a new set of FreeBSD aficionados created when some >> implementation gets released. See comp.lang.forth for lively discussion. > >This is NOT why you do things, this is a poor excuse. Heck, then we >should use perl! <0.5 wink> Perl sounds good too ;) Well, the fact that attracted me to picoBSD a few days/weeks ago was the fact that it was going to do the things Cisco/Shiva and other box-routers can do except then for embedded systems or small memory footprint setups... My choice of support was the latter. Not to say I don't see any future in the first, it's just something I cannot discuss about as my knowledge is zero in that area, hence why all my posts take a small setup based on diskettes as startpoint. Narrowminded? Mayhaps =) >> Forth is very much alive and kicking. When one is seeking a minimalist >> solution, I can't think of a better alternative to assembly code. > >Have we really even yet determined that any such solution is needed, or >in fact are we trying to find a hammer to a nail that is only in the >imagination of those among us? I would appreciate CLEAR CONCISE >descriptions of REAL-WORLD problems that this would solve, not some >hyperbole about how it would make thus and such possi ble, which >presumes that anyone in their right midn would WANT it. True, it might be trying to find a nail. The fact is that we have to provide an UI. That's something we all agree upon, as we all see the need to change the default /bin/sh to something less versatile, yet more useful for our goal. See also another post of mine: picoBSD Goals >Remember, PicoBSD is designed to be small and simple, choosing obtuse >(for most people) languages as extension sets is just plain SILLY. Might have a valid point there, but ye forgot one point, the UI will be written in Forth if I understood Andrej correctly. It won't be usable by the admin/user... Regards, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven / Asmodai ICQ-UIN: 1564317 .:. Ninth Circle Enterprises Network/Security Specialist /==|| FreeBSD and picoBSD, the Power to Serve ||==\ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.0 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBNhp/j4Y752GnxADpEQJBfQCgrOda29PbSt04hSwq+Vv3lxHOtn0AoOz9 0/3fxFsfULR9ESfAmA6OW0EQ =YsqV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message