2 ms·
I think this post misses the point. It is notoriously difficult to write robust code for most varieties of unix shell. This has been the case for decades. It's
by theoh 12y ago
I think this post misses the point. It is notoriously difficult to write robust code for most varieties of unix shell. This has been the case for decades. It's a bad situation and the GNU project's attempts to remedy it (e.g. Guile) haven't got any traction. It is an embarrassment.
- wirrbel 12y agoI really love the idea of GNU, yet the FSF seems to more interested about "principles" than shipping good code and empowering collaboration. In times of Github and low-entry barrier participation, GNU sticks to the old ways like a dinosaur - petrifying. It reminds me a little of vim, as bash, it has a really old code base, old-style function headers (not ANSI C). For Vim it took a github-based fork (neovim) to get a big community on board, establish tests and perform the necessary refactoring. All of this is great, just as the work of the founders of these programs. The criticism is not aimed at the work that was done by the "founders" of these landmark programs, but the stagnation of development and refactoring.
- anon1385 12y agoThe FSF are quite explicit about the fact that they don't really care about code quality. Their recent statements about shellshock are just the most recent examples of that. GNU is primarily a political project, not a software project. If you want software that puts code quality ahead of politics then you should look to one of the BSDs.