From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make "git reset" a builtin. (incomplete) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:21:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <46CC3090.7080500@gmail.com> <86absjenc3.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> <46CC3C17.8040901@op5.se> <864pirej6w.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Aug 22 19:21:22 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1INttP-00080v-55 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:21:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933765AbXHVRVR (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:21:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933751AbXHVRVP (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:21:15 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:20622 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933220AbXHVRVO (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:21:14 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([74.56.106.175]) by VL-MO-MR003.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-2.05 (built Apr 28 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JN600I43QVDC7Y0@VL-MO-MR003.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:21:13 -0400 (EDT) In-reply-to: X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: 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