Re: [PATCH] Make "git reset" a builtin. (incomplete)

[Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>]

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, David Kastrup wrote:
> > 
> > > Personally, I would prefer an approach of using an embedded script 
> > > interpreter: then language incompatibilities become a non-issue. 
> > > git-busybox sounded like a great idea for portability.
> > 
> > Indeed.  And while the conversion of some script into C was the right 
> > thing to do performance wise, many other scripts are hardly performance 
> > critical.
> 
> What is wrong with going from shell to C?  C _is_ portable.  Instead of 
> relying on _yet_ another scripting language, introducing _yet_ another 
> language that people have to learn to hack git, introducing _yet_ another 
> place for bugs to hide, why not just admit that shell is nice for 
> _prototyping_?

This is a narrow view of the programming world that I don't share.

C is portable indeed, which is one of its upsides.  But it has many 
downsides too for many _users_, that as a Git _developer_ you apparently 
conveniently ignore.

> Why do we have to to have the same discussion over and over and over 
> again?

Because, as shown by the recurring nature of this discussion, using C for 
everything is evidently not the optimal solution.


Nicolas