From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct  9 15:29:03 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B446D348;
 Wed,  9 Oct 2013 15:29:03 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67DD62EE7;
 Wed,  9 Oct 2013 15:29:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id r99FT05B037265;
 Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:29:00 -0600 (MDT)
 (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost)
 by wonkity.com (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) with ESMTP id r99FT0Ti037262;
 Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:29:00 -0600 (MDT)
 (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com)
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:29:00 -0600 (MDT)
From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>
To: "Teske, Devin" <Devin.Teske@fisglobal.com>
Subject: Re: [CFT] Patch to bsdinstall to support root-on-ZFS and GELI
In-Reply-To: <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D720FC46904@LTCFISWMSGMB21.FNFIS.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1310090914210.37118@wonkity.com>
References: <52546844.2010608@freebsd.org> <5254774C.8030204@pix.net>
 <525478EA.8080207@freebsd.org>
 <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D720FC46904@LTCFISWMSGMB21.FNFIS.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3
 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 09 Oct 2013 09:29:00 -0600 (MDT)
Cc: "<freebsd-current@freebsd.org>" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>,
 Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
 <freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-current>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
 <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 15:29:03 -0000

On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Teske, Devin wrote:

> "But shell is nasty; slow; and not as powerful as C" (it depends in what
> context; the first is rhetoric, the second is only true for poor implement-
> ations, and the third may be true in some contexts, but I consider the
> answer to "how maintainable is it" to be a factor in the "power" of a
> language, so don't necessarily consider C to be more powerful than
> shell as the latter is as-or-more maintainable with fewer LoC and a
> higher return on investment; see previous [above] arguments).

My question would be: why are sh and C the only choices?  If the answer 
is "because that's all we have in base", is that a valid concern?

As far as sh, it lacks many high- or even mid-level constructs and has 
real problems with quoting, parsing, and output (2>&1 >&3, for example). 
These make it harder to do things (aka, more code to accomplish a task, 
more code to be maintained, more difficult to modify) than the higher 
level Perubython languages.

In any case, thanks for working on this.  A functioning program in any 
language is better than a non-existent "better" one.