Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 17:48:01 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> Cc: Devin Teske <dteske@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Dirk Engling <erdgeist@erdgeist.org>, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD installers and future direction Message-ID: <CADLo8392s-ZZYo5=u6aEeaQ1B9pBSe41XT3mHm-gPVVVXSuAPw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1305262202001.24578@sea.ntplx.net> References: <51A0DC3F.9030301@cran.org.uk> <CAK6u07WDZrWU4dnrBzQGYf%2BpbmibK7KxSUZyvie8jJQ1SMODuw@mail.gmail.com> <51A1025A.2020607@cran.org.uk> <51A14445.4060305@freebsd.org> <51A15EDF.6050600@erdgeist.org> <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D7201F5B2E7@ltcfiswmsgmb26> <51A29A5F.7010106@erdgeist.org> <13CA24D6AB415D428143D44749F57D7201F61FE0@ltcfiswmsgmb21> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1305262202001.24578@sea.ntplx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27 May 2013 03:10, "Daniel Eischen" <deischen@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 May 2013, Teske, Devin wrote: >> >> >> I don't think there's any reason why we have to write it in C if we can write >> it in sh. > > > I don't really care one way or the other (C or sh), but > I can say that I can understand(*) well structured C a lot > better than well structured sh. Having something more > strongly typed certainly helps understanding. > > (*) Assuming some level of complexity (I know that's > subjective). I think it's all down to familiarity. I suppose sh is more resistant to many stupid bugs and handles strings well.... But it has its own troubles too of course. Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo8392s-ZZYo5=u6aEeaQ1B9pBSe41XT3mHm-gPVVVXSuAPw>