On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, David Kastrup wrote: > > > > > Personally, I would prefer an approach of using an embedded script > > > interpreter: then language incompatibilities become a non-issue. > > > git-busybox sounded like a great idea for portability. > > > > Indeed. And while the conversion of some script into C was the right > > thing to do performance wise, many other scripts are hardly performance > > critical. > > What is wrong with going from shell to C? C _is_ portable. Instead of > relying on _yet_ another scripting language, introducing _yet_ another > language that people have to learn to hack git, introducing _yet_ another > place for bugs to hide, why not just admit that shell is nice for > _prototyping_? This is a narrow view of the programming world that I don't share. C is portable indeed, which is one of its upsides. But it has many downsides too for many _users_, that as a Git _developer_ you apparently conveniently ignore. > Why do we have to to have the same discussion over and over and over > again? Because, as shown by the recurring nature of this discussion, using C for everything is evidently not the optimal solution. Nicolas - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
