7 ms·
IMHO, we need more than one language in the shell: one to orchestrate launching of applications, plumbing, and processing of their inputs and outputs, another o
by drran 6y ago
IMHO, we need more than one language in the shell: one to orchestrate launching of applications, plumbing, and processing of their inputs and outputs, another one for computations with integers, floats, complex values, arrays, matrices, another one for text processing and parsing, another one for argument parsing and default values, another one for error handling and recovery, another one for pattern matching and state machines, another one for object-oriented programming, another one for network programming, another one for record-oriented programming, another one for security and debugging, another one for container management, another one for system manipulation, upgrading, recovering, another one for documentation, and so on, with advanced way to share variables and data between these languages (environment variables on steroids).
It's not possible to implement such monstrosity as one simple, portable, small, fast, and secure binary.
- effie 6y agoWhy not? Busybox is an example of how to pack diverse capabilities into one binary.