Re: PROPOSAL: dot-proc interface [was: /proc stuff]

Kai Henningsen
2001-11-06T08:15:37Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii, Size: 1108 bytes --]

jakob@unthought.net (Jakob ¥stergaard) wrote on 04.11.01 in <20011104210936.T14001@unthought.net>:

> On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 03:01:12PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 4 Nov 2001, [iso-8859-1] Jakob %stergaard wrote:
> >
> > > Strong type information (in one form or the other) is absolutely
> > > fundamental for achieving correctness in this kind of software.
> >
> > Like, say it, all shell programming? Or the whole idea of "file as stream
> > of characters"? Or pipes, for that matter...
> >
>
> Shell programming is great for small programs. You don't need type
> information in the language when you can fit it all in your head.
>
> Now, go write 100K lines of shell, something that does something that is not
> just shoveling lines from one app into a grep and into another app. Let's
> say, a database. Go implement the next Oracle replacement in bash, and tell
> me you don't care about types in your language.

And now look at how large typical /proc-using code parts are. Do they
match better with your first or your second paragraph?

The first?

I thought so.

MfG Kai