From owner-freebsd-small Sat Oct 3 16:46:16 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA21151 for freebsd-small-outgoing; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 16:46:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from whizzo.transsys.com (whizzo.TransSys.COM [144.202.42.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA21119 for ; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 16:46:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from louie@whizzo.transsys.com) Received: from whizzo.transsys.com (localhost.transsys.com [127.0.0.1]) by whizzo.transsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA21910; Sat, 3 Oct 1998 19:45:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from louie@whizzo.transsys.com) Message-Id: <199810032345.TAA21910@whizzo.transsys.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Andrzej Bialecki cc: Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai , Jerry Hicks , FreeBSD Small From: "Louis A. Mamakos" Subject: Re: Command-line i/f (Re: PicoBSD) References: In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 04 Oct 1998 00:39:32 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 03 Oct 1998 19:45:30 -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 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