Re: If you would write git from scratch now, what would you change?

[Jan Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1688 bytes --]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 18:11:43 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > If you would write git from scratch now, from the beginning, without
> > concerns for backwards compatibility, what would you change, or what
> > would you want to have changed?
> 
> Get rid of plumbing at the command line level.  It is confusing to

No, please. It's extremely useful. It should be a bit more hidden, but it's
a big advantage of git that the plumbing is available.

> users, and command line arguments, exec calls and I/O streams are not
> efficient and reasonably typed mechanisms for the kind of operations
> done in plumbing.  Instead using a good extensible portable scripting
> language (I consider Lua quite suitable in that regard, but it is
> conceivable that something with a native list type supporting easy
> sorts, merges and selections could be more efficient) and implementing
> plumbing in that or in C would have been preferable for creating the
> porcelain.

POSIX shell is really the best extensible portable scripting language
available for the job. Because the whipuptitude is the most important
property and shell is simply best at one-liners. And since you use it
for regular work (running editor, compiler, git porcelain), it is the
obvious choice for whiping up a short function.

> That would keep plumbing out of the hair of users and make it easier to
> cobble together extensions and variations with non-trivial internal
> dataflow.
> 
> Shell scripts have also proven to be a constant hassle with regard to
> portability and bugs (like underquoting).

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@ucw.cz>

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]