Re: new sysinstall

[Chris Pressey <cpressey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:59:22 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Dillon <dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>     Considering the restricted circumstances of its use I'm sure we
>     can use the <? ?> shortcut.  Alternatively we can free-form the
>     PHP e.g. like just use braces {....} for the PHP, and then write a
>     filter to converti t to the <?php ?> form that the web server
>     needs.

This sounds like solving a non-problem to me.

Actually, I think this whole thread is leaning in that direction. 
Having a live CD filesystem and decoupling the install logic from the
interface are both good ideas, but they have very little bearing on the
choice of language.  I would love to hear *why* people are suggesting
the languages they are, beyond their gut feelings about aesthetics -
this involves stating the requirements, or at least concrete examples,
i.e. what kinds of install scripts do people plan to need to write?

Just about every languages' footprint looks small compared to X, and
probably most of them could be compiled into monolithic executables,
so I'm not sure whether those are useful criteria for deciding, either
(unless they're absolutely critical.)

Or maybe someone could just start me off with why sh + C isn't good
enough.  Sure, maintainability is an admirable goal, but in my
experience, there's no language that automatically grants you that.  I'd
much rather work on someone else's well-thought-out, well-commented,
well-written sh script, than their poorly-thought-out, poorly-commented,
poorly-written Perl/Python/Ruby/Tcl/PHP program.  *Especially* if it's
not "really" Perl/Python/etc, but a crippled fork with its own quirks.

Your thoughts on this matter very much appreciated - throw me a bone
here guys, my head is spinning! :)

-Chris