2 ms·
Yes I'm glad that message is getting through. Although I also want to add the other perspective: Oil from a clean slate. I'm working on "A Tour of Oil" doc th
by chubot 5y ago
Yes I'm glad that message is getting through. Although I also want to add the other perspective: Oil from a clean slate. I'm working on "A Tour of Oil" doc that will show that Oil is not encumbered by much legacy at all.
Even though it evolved from bash/OSH, and is in fact the same interpreter parameterized by some global options, it is a nice clean new language :)
It's surprising how much language evolution was enabled by "shopt" options, principled parsing, and algebraic data types!
- pxc 5y agoThe new doc sounds exciting! I'm looking forward to giving it a read. I think the approach Oil takes is pretty cool. It just seems like a lot of work, and I'm much more interested in Oil than in OSH. I can see how it might make Oil attractive to Linux distros for choosing as a system shell, though, since it means they could just ship the one binary, and then offer experienced POSIX shell users OSH as an escape hatch while still presenting Oil as the preferred way to write scripts. It does also partially spare users from the problems Fish users face where CLI tools ship with scripts to initialize a bunch of env vars, and now suddenly you either need them to ship a Fish script, translate it yourself, or do some hacking where you run a BASH shell and mirror its env var changes. So I can see some benefits for sure, but to me those are less exciting than the new stuff. :D