Re: scsh.net broken link(s)

On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Ebzzry <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Andreas Bernauer
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Anthony Carrico wrote:
>>> Nunez Steve wrote:
>>>> Whilst I'm here, is there any active development of this shell going on?
>>>
>>> I don't know. Sunterlib has been dormant for a long time. I don't use
>>> scsh much these days because of a lack of 64bit support.
>>
>> Besides the lack of 64bit support, I summarized my reasons, why I don't use scsh
>> any more in this rant:
>> http://www.lysium.de/blog/archives/215-Why-I-dont-use-scsh-as-a-scripting-language-anymore.html
>
> I don't see the relevance of that blog post regarding the issue of not
> being able to have 64-bit support.
Ignore this sentence. I didn't see the word "Besides".
>
>>
>> As a short summary, writing and debugging scripts written with scsh is awful:
>> lots of quirky extra syntax to remember to write a script and error messages
>> with no line numbers and contexts.
>
> I can't argue with how you view it, but IMNSHO, it's not really that
> awful. There may be some quirks on the ways Scsh parses its arguments,
> but those alone are not enough to give it such label(s). I haven't
> fully explored Scsh error display facility, but for all the past years
> that I've been writing non-trivial scripts in it, the so-called
> "errors don't tell you where they come from" was not enough to deter
> me. At the back of my mind, I knew what I was writing and I knew how
> it would come out, even better when I read and understood the relevant
> sources of information regarding the matter at hand, e.g. some X
> procedure described in the manual.
>
>>
>>
>> There are more viable alternatives than scsh out there to write scripts, which
>> also allow functional-style programming and access to the OS. It's sad, but
>> that's the way it is (at least for me).
>
> It depends on what you may call "viable." That statement is very
> subjective. There may or may not, but bear in mind that since it's a
> Scheme system, you have all the flexibility and power of such,
> especially if you know how to maximize it.
>
> Some arguments you have listed may be valid, but in my case, they're
> trivial and/or can be worked around with. Scsh in its current or
> future, "improved" state (if that's how people want to
> label it) is still viable and has plenty of room for improvement. It
> may continue as "Scsh" or become forked and/or mutated into something
> else, but what's certain is that it is a beautiful system and we can
> learn a lot from it.
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Andreas.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Rommel M. Martinez
> [email protected]
> http://www.bespin.org/~ebzzry
>



-- 
Rommel M. Martinez
[email protected]
http://www.bespin.org/~ebzzry