Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1998 21:19:36 +1000 From: "Andrew Hannam" <hannama@fan.net.au> To: "Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai" <asmodai@wxs.nl>, "Christopher G. Petrilli" <petrilli@amber.org> Cc: "FreeBSD Small" <freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Command-line i/f Message-ID: <000101bdf1e4$5e0279e0$0104010a@andrewh.famzon.com.au> In-Reply-To: <Version.32.19981006232725.01028710@pop.wxs.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> Not necessarily... Quite a few mortals know how to code > Forth. I have > >> enjoyed a fair amount of success over the years introducing > Forth to new > >> programmers. > > > >This is really not a valid argument. Quite a few mortals know x86 > >assembler, but that hardly makes it attractive <wink> I think the > >reality is that RPN is totally foreign to most people, at least those > >who don't keep a traditional HP calculator by their sides. > > Heh, depends on what it will be used for... It is small though ;) With all this discussion on Forth, I ask myself why people are looking for alternatives to the most common script language/command line (/bin/sh). The obvious answer is size but yet it was not so long ago that I remember seeing versions of sh below the 10K mark in size (albiet 16 bit versions). What happenned ? - Job control, command line completion and all sorts of other very nice features. Has anyone looked back into history to find a far more minimal version of the shell that is more suitable to PicoBSD's requirements ? Whilst writing 32 bit code may cause larger binaries - we have the advantages of shared libraries to help reduce it again. Anyone know of such an implementation with appropriate source licenses? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000101bdf1e4$5e0279e0$0104010a>