4 ms·

>which I considered inappropriate You never specified what about it is inappropriate. Your complaints about the language amounted at most to a pathetic ad homi

>which I considered inappropriate You never specified what about it is inappropriate. Your complaints about the language amounted at most to a pathetic ad hominem. >As a result you replied in a way that missed any understanding and respect There was nothing to understand as you had not communicated anything but the fact you found it somehow offensive. As the comment contains nothing offensive you need to be more specific. Since you didn't do that it comes of just as a dismissive personal attack. >and harshly critized me for writing in an unintelligible way This is because the sentence was unintelligible even when I'd asked multiple people to try to interpret it. This is not harsh criticism, it's just a statement of a fact. >(I accidentally left out one word in a sentence, sorry for that) The lack of that word made the sentence completely nonsensical. Why are you whining to me about not understanding it? And it seems you never fixed the sentence so it's still just as unintelligible. >Changing SHELL does not solve the inconvenience of having start a new process and having to go through a command-line interface each time. What does this mean?

jstimpfle 9y ago
You are continuing to be quite uncivil. > Since you didn't do that it comes of just as a dismissive personal attack. I think (from the earlier comment): > Also changing the language for recipes is trivial and painfully obvious. If you can't do something as simple as `SHELL := /your/own/interpreter' then why do you think you are qualified to make a build system? is quite an obvious personal attack, and it got deservedly flagged multiple times. I'm sure you're able to find this yourself from two little paragraphs. No need to act as if you couldn't. And even if you couldn't, no need to be extremely offensive and start name-calling. > This is because the sentence was unintelligible even when I'd asked multiple people to try to interpret it. This is not harsh criticism, it's just a statement of a fact. Of course it was harsh criticism for an oversight that just happens. The comment is no longer there, but you chose a completely inappropriate and aggressive tone. > What does this mean? Replace "having start" with "having to start". And maybe replace "solve" with "remove", which might be a better fit here (I'm not a native speaker).
- lolikoisuru 9y ago
  >Replace "having start" with "having to start". And maybe replace "solve" with "remove", which might be a better fit here (I'm not a native speaker). The latter half of the sentence is still incomprehensible.
  - jstimpfle 9y ago
    I thought it was perfectly understandable, but here is another way of putting it. By "going through a command-line interface" I mean that you have to start a new process, and hand over all state as command-line parameters (because it's a new process). This can be impractical and error-prone, especially if you add shell AND make syntax on top. From within a decent scripting language (e.g. Python) instead, you can simply use the convenient built-in data structures (e.g. list/tuple of str) as command-line parameters for subprocesses.
    - lolikoisuru 9y ago
      >I mean that you have to start a new process, and hand over all state as command-line parameters (because it's a new process). Do you mean to the shell's command-line parameters or the compiler's? Either way whatever state you need you can also give as macro expansions. MACRO := whatever SHELL := /usr/bin/python .RECIPEPREFIX := > .ONESHELL: .PHONY: all .SILENT: all: >foo="$(MACRO)" >print("{}".format(foo)) >print("You can call yur compiler from python if you want. You could even write the build system from OP here if you wanted to") >This can be impractical and error-prone, especially if you add shell AND make syntax on top. Make syntax is just simple macro expansion. Shouldn't be too hard. And no one is forcing you to use a bourne-style shell. You can use Lua, Perl, Python, Javascript, whatever you want. >From within a decent scripting language (e.g. Python) instead You can use Python. >you can simply use the convenient built-in data structures (e.g. list/tuple of str) as command-line parameters for subprocesses. Then do that here. You don't need to reinvent everything just because you dislike one part of an existing solution. This kind of NIH is why there are so many sub par solutions for everything and nothing is compatible with each other.

jstimpfle 9y ago

You are continuing to be quite uncivil. > Since you didn't do that it comes of just as a dismissive personal attack. I think (from the earlier comment): > Also changing the language for recipes is trivial and painfully obvious. If you can't do something as simple as `SHELL := /your/own/interpreter' then why do you think you are qualified to make a build system? is quite an obvious personal attack, and it got deservedly flagged multiple times. I'm sure you're able to find this yourself from two little paragraphs. No need to act as if you couldn't. And even if you couldn't, no need to be extremely offensive and start name-calling. > This is because the sentence was unintelligible even when I'd asked multiple people to try to interpret it. This is not harsh criticism, it's just a statement of a fact. Of course it was harsh criticism for an oversight that just happens. The comment is no longer there, but you chose a completely inappropriate and aggressive tone. > What does this mean? Replace "having start" with "having to start". And maybe replace "solve" with "remove", which might be a better fit here (I'm not a native speaker).

lolikoisuru 9y ago
>Replace "having start" with "having to start". And maybe replace "solve" with "remove", which might be a better fit here (I'm not a native speaker). The latter half of the sentence is still incomprehensible.
- jstimpfle 9y ago
  I thought it was perfectly understandable, but here is another way of putting it. By "going through a command-line interface" I mean that you have to start a new process, and hand over all state as command-line parameters (because it's a new process). This can be impractical and error-prone, especially if you add shell AND make syntax on top. From within a decent scripting language (e.g. Python) instead, you can simply use the convenient built-in data structures (e.g. list/tuple of str) as command-line parameters for subprocesses.
  - lolikoisuru 9y ago
    >I mean that you have to start a new process, and hand over all state as command-line parameters (because it's a new process). Do you mean to the shell's command-line parameters or the compiler's? Either way whatever state you need you can also give as macro expansions. MACRO := whatever SHELL := /usr/bin/python .RECIPEPREFIX := > .ONESHELL: .PHONY: all .SILENT: all: >foo="$(MACRO)" >print("{}".format(foo)) >print("You can call yur compiler from python if you want. You could even write the build system from OP here if you wanted to") >This can be impractical and error-prone, especially if you add shell AND make syntax on top. Make syntax is just simple macro expansion. Shouldn't be too hard. And no one is forcing you to use a bourne-style shell. You can use Lua, Perl, Python, Javascript, whatever you want. >From within a decent scripting language (e.g. Python) instead You can use Python. >you can simply use the convenient built-in data structures (e.g. list/tuple of str) as command-line parameters for subprocesses. Then do that here. You don't need to reinvent everything just because you dislike one part of an existing solution. This kind of NIH is why there are so many sub par solutions for everything and nothing is compatible with each other.