From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 24 19:24:55 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 490BC16A4EE for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:24:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from vhost109.his.com (vhost109.his.com [216.194.225.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE3B543FBF for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:24:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (localhost.his.com [127.0.0.1]) by vhost109.his.com (8.12.6p3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id hAP3OhC7086509; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:24:45 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from brad.knowles@skynet.be) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <16322.46948.477159.327377@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> References: <20031124092346.F63116@sbk-gw.sibnet.ru> <16322.12836.446856.133425@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <3FC2B0E4.4060504@mindspring.com> <16322.46948.477159.327377@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 04:16:41 +0100 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Brad Knowles Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Andrew Gallatin Subject: Re: Unfortunate dynamic linking for everything X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 03:24:55 -0000 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, "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(+++)