Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 19:45:30 -0400 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> To: Andrzej Bialecki <abial@nask.pl> Cc: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl>, Jerry Hicks <jhicks@glenatl.glenayre.com>, FreeBSD Small <freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Command-line i/f (Re: PicoBSD) Message-ID: <199810032345.TAA21910@whizzo.transsys.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 04 Oct 1998 00:39:32 %2B0200." <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9810040027120.23821-100000@korin.warman.org.pl> References: <Pine.BSF.4.02A.9810040027120.23821-100000@korin.warman.org.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. I can certainly see how having an extensible shell would be a very attractive thing. But if you expect mere mortals to be able to run (and extend) the thing, I think a FORTH-based approach is doomed to fail (again). 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. louie 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?199810032345.TAA21910>