Le 17/02/2015 01:23, Isaac Dunham a écrit :
> But shell scripts can be written well, and writing a shell script to
> solve a problem beats writing a custom config to handle how one tool
> does it, and then not being able to apply that to another platform...
> or an older version of the same distro. And so I would rather use
> something that *expects* shell scripts than something that tolerates
> them for "backwards compatability". And I'm certainly not interested
> in using a custom config because RedHat's employees can't understand
> how to write fast shell scripts. Why should I expect them to write
> efficient and safe C if they can't manage efficient and safe sh? "The
> price of reliability is the pursuit of the utmost simplicity." Thanks,
> Isaac Dunham
Isaac, you already wrote that in another ML, and I agree with you
so much that I now explicitely use this method: have as many
command-line switches as necessary in the application and invoke it
through a shell script which sets them all. Everybody reading the script
understands what it is doing. It's more user-friendly than using a
different configuration proto-language for every new application.
Didier
::
Re: [Dng] About Devuan's audience
