From owner-freebsd-small Tue Oct 6 15:37:42 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA17564 for freebsd-small-outgoing; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:37:42 -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 PAA17447 for ; Tue, 6 Oct 1998 15:37:08 -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 AAC50E; Wed, 7 Oct 1998 00:37:02 +0200 Message-Id: X-Sender: skywise@pop.wxs.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0 Demo Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 00:02:11 +0200 To: James da Silva From: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai Subject: Re: Command-line i/f (Re: PicoBSD) Cc: FreeBSD Small , Mike Smith In-Reply-To: <199810051918.PAA21621@torrentnet.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 21:18 05-10-98 , James da Silva wrote: > > > >IOS is not a good example to follow here. > > > Well it might be a source for command names ;) > > Not even that. IOS's command interface is a festering abomination. > > Emulating it would be a major error. > >Unless you're trying to sell a router to people who have it memorized >already, warts and all. :-) But that's not what we're aiming at ;) >It seems to me that the basic goal here for picoBSD is to be able to >configure the whole thing from one script file, including perhaps some >extensibility (which IOS does not have). Extensibility sounds good, would an basic UI work as a start point and then for the various configs create some sort of plug-in that allows normal FreeBSD boxen to creates personalized disks of picoBSD (each with his own components needed to perform a given task)? >An extensible config language can be very small and very quickly >implemented. I had thought the TCL interpreter core (minus all the library >routines) was very small, maybe something went wrong. Forth certainly >qualifies. Small schemes (eg siod) qualify. A simple line-based mini- >language can be cons'ed up in a weekend. Choosing among these is pure >religion. What we have to look at with the languages are: size, speed, extensibility and especially use. >If forth is being considered as way to implement a lot of the >non-performance critical "glue" code, and not necessarily as the interface >through which the admin operates, then that's less controversial. I thought Andrej was very clear in that? Or maybe I was misinterpreting him, but as far as I understood it, he wanted to use Forth for the whole UI thing which provides the command set for the admins to use. >Wouldn't Java or some other bytecode language be similarly compact, or at >least in the same ballpark? I know, a typical java runtime, like tcl, is >bloated; but how much of that is necessary? How big would a simple JVM >with only the basic classes be? Dunno, any way of finding out? 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/AwUBNhqFVIY752GnxADpEQJxHQCg/U5OMBzkI427XshJqcbqugH1XA4An21a h2TcEZIMQxnLNQQov5Cpz+LN =intb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message