Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 00:39:32 +0200 (CEST) From: Andrzej Bialecki <abial@nask.pl> To: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> Cc: Jerry Hicks <jhicks@glenatl.glenayre.com>, FreeBSD Small <freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Command-line i/f (Re: PicoBSD) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9810040027120.23821-100000@korin.warman.org.pl> In-Reply-To: <Version.32.19981003205445.0108b5e0@pop.wxs.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 3 Oct 1998, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 07:59 02-10-98 , Andrzej Bialecki wrote: > >On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Jerry Hicks wrote: > > > >> YAPL with some pretty desirable attributes for this sort of application. > I > >> believe you're right on track Adrzej. > > > >Heh.. Thanks for confirmation :-) Well, I know it's not _that_ popular > ><evil grin>, but it gives tremendous programmability and > >flexibility, compared to what /bin/sh gives with much more bloat. And I'd > >rather not invent YAPL, tripping over the same pitfalls as others did - > >Forth is very mature and well defined. > > Never played with Forth, what does it compare to? Hard to tell... It's definitely different than other popular languages. It's built around a concept of stack (all operations are done on its internal stacks), it's a cross between compiler and interpreter, uses a Reverse Polish Notation for most of its operations (now, this is not the reason I started to play with it :-)), etc, etc, - see www.forth.org for more info. > That wasn't my suggestion, but the current setup of FreeBSD is too limiting > or too scattered throughout directories to be of any use for the picoBSD > setup. Exactly! This is the issue I want to address. > But I think that's the question, how far are ye willing to go to > preserve usability on the picoBSD setups, as far as I now can foresee, we > use these disks for quick and 'dirty' routers. How much use is there to > support every known command that don't actually add on to the purpose of > which the disks were designed (correct me if wrong offcourse =). As I see > it, we should/could use the FreeBSD cores, extend it with things like Zebra > and the likes and modify the UI/shell to resemble configuration commands > like IOS and Shiva/SpiderSoftware routing stuff... Again, I fully agree with you - that's also my intention. And I see a Forth -based shell as a means to accomplish it - to glue all these elements together, at the same time giving it flexibility and programming abilities far beyond those of /bin/sh. Andrzej Bialecki -------------------- ++-------++ ------------------------------------- <abial@nask.pl> ||PicoBSD|| FreeBSD in your pocket? Go and see: Research & Academic |+-------+| "Small & Embedded FreeBSD" Network in Poland | |TT~~~| | http://www.freebsd.org/~picobsd/ -------------------- ~-+==---+-+ ------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.02A.9810040027120.23821-100000>