Re: new sysinstall

[Chris Pressey <cpressey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 01 Sep 2003 03:30:32 GMT
"Justin C. Sherrill" <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think what's being decided is not what will be
> used, but what it will be possible to use. 

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 22:57:57 -0700
Bill Huey (hui) <billh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Tons of things can be done with language environment like that, that
> are impossible in other more primitive environments.

I guess one reason I'm having a hard time getting a grasp of this, is
that I consider (within reason) that everything is possible and that
nothing is impossible.  After all, all these languages *are*
Turing-complete -- I've seen things done in pure sh that made my
eyeballs pop out of my skull.  So we can really only speak in terms of
making things easier on ourselves, rather than making things possible.

> But what needs to be
> clarified is the extent and direction of the project first before any
> set of tools can be prescribe for implementation. That's the real
> problem here, not the choice of programming language.

That's almost exactly what I'm asking about in regards to requirements
and/or a concrete example.  I haven't seen any of note yet, and it makes
for good fuel for a language war.  I'd prefer to avoid that...

I know I'd much prefer a "zero-footprint" solution, which is why I'm
still thinking in terms of sh plus C.

At the very least, I do hope that whatever tools installed for the
purposes of installation will be removable after the fact without undue
consequences...

-Chris