DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-09
Re: new sysinstall
Chris Pressey wrote:
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.
I can't give you a technical justification. But I have found it very
common for large shell scripts to degenerate into an unreadable mess.
Sure, a really good programmer can write clear, well commented code in
any language. And a poor programmer can write unreadable code in any
language. But the way I look at it, we are looking for the "sweet
spot". In a dynamic environment (which includes any open source OS
project), a scripting language should result in easier to read, easier
to maintain code, and should allow greater participation by a larger
group of people.
But as Dennis Miller says "Don't take my word for it. I could be wrong".