CoreUtils implemented in pure JavaScript

Post by lispm » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 5:33 PM UTC

laumars wrote: post #66

lispm wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're not that bad (GNU coreutils is generally pretty good) and you usually remember the edge cases fairly quickly (eg `dd`). Sadly you get inconsistencies in all coding frameworks, whether it's semantic, function names in the core libraries or whatever. Generally this is all awful and low-level. Just see the UI interface difference between 'dd' and 'Copy File' on a Lisp Machine. The UI is worlds away. > UNIX she…

I suspect your argument is now more about personal preference than anything. So I'll just address a few specific points you've raise: > Generally this is all awful and low-level. Just see the UI interface difference between 'dd' and 'Copy File' on a Lisp Machine. The UI is worlds away. Well yeah, I did already example `dd` as an inconsistency. :) > You can do that on a Lisp Machine, too. With the difference that no p…

     _perforce_revisions() {
        local rline match mbegin mend pfx
        local -a rl

        pfx=${${(Q)PREFIX}%%\#*}
        compset -P '*\#'

        # Numerical revision numbers, possibly with text.
        if [[ -z $PREFIX || $PREFIX =  ]]; then
            # always allowed (same as none)
            rl=($rl 0)
            _call_program filelog p4 filelog \$pfx 2>/dev/null |
               while read rline; do
                if [[ $rline = (#b)'... #'()*\'(*)\' ]]; then
                    rl=($l "${match[1]}:${match[2]}")
                fi
            done
        fi
        # Non-numerical (special) revision names.
        if [[ -z $PREFIX || $PREFIX !=  ]]; then
            rl=($rl 'head:head revision' 'none:empty revision'
                    'have:current synced revision')
        fi
        _describe -t revisions 'revision' rl
      }

Post by imtringued » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 5:47 PM UTC

pdpi wrote: post #30

cyphar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UNIX shells suck. Javascript sucks. How could one implement a UNIX shell in Javascript and have it not suck? What do you mean by "UNIX shells suck"? I'm fairly sure most people would consider UNIX shells to be one of the bigger revolutions in computing.

Perhaps it's my own shortcoming, but for any given script I write, I find that, say, 20% of all my code is productive, and the remaining 80% is massaging the output of one tool into a shape that's compatible with the input of the next tool. Compare with the exprience of using Windows PowerShell where cmdlets return objects and you can grab precisely the fields you want with minimum ceremony. Things are better now wit…

Post by gherkin0 » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 5:52 PM UTC

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #81

na85 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of vitriol because it's yet another "I took something that works and rewrote it to be slower, less functional, and JavaScript" Making computing worse, one fork at a time.

This is the attitude that drives people away from working on open source.

Post by soundwave106 » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 6:41 PM UTC

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #39

It's always mind blowing how when someone makes a neat project like this and the comments are nothing but complaining, vitriol, etc.

Post by recursive » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 6:51 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #94

recursive wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more simple from the point of view of the processor, I suppose, but that's not a useful metric for me.

Is your unit of simplicity really "I already have this installed"? Because then this hello world line I just wrote is more complex than your OS.