Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 04:16:41 +0100 From: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything Message-ID: <p06002004bbe8797dc0bd@[10.0.1.2]> In-Reply-To: <16322.46948.477159.327377@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> References: <20031124092346.F63116@sbk-gw.sibnet.ru> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1031124104428.61465G-100000@fledge.watson.org> <16322.12836.446856.133425@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <3FC2B0E4.4060504@mindspring.com> <16322.46948.477159.327377@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 8:59 PM -0500 2003/11/24, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> Of course not. Nobody in their right mind uses csh for scripting.
To my great horror, csh is used in most of the DNS debugging and
many of the log-processing scripts that I have inherited. One of
these days, I will finally live up to my threat of importing all this
functionality into other programs that use other languages (toss
"doc" and incorporate that functionality into "dnswalk", etc...), but
that has not happened yet.
Meanwhile, I don't know that a dynamic vs. static csh does me any
measurable harm -- the delays waiting for responses from nameservers
will overwhelm any local delays caused by dynamic vs. static linking.
--
Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.
GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+
!w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++)
tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06002004bbe8797dc0bd>