On 22/08/07, David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, David Kastrup wrote: > >> > If the scripting engine of choice for cobbling together > >> > prototypes remains the Unix toolchain outside of git proper, then > >> > Windows users will _always_ remain second class citizens since > >> > they will get to work with and on new porcelain much later than > >> > the rest of the world: namely when somebody bothers porting his > >> > new favorite tool for them to C. > >> > >> Right. > > > > And not making the scripts builtins helps Windows users how, > > exactly? > > Red herring. The proposal was not to do nothing, but rather give git > a dedicated scripting language internal to it. That is a really neat idea. > Two suggestions of > mine with different advantages were git-busybox and Lua. A third one > was once proposed by Linus with some code example: starting a > scripting language from scratch. Do you have a link to the proposal? > So obviously, the need for something > like that is recognized, and not having to start from zero for that > might be an advantage if a good, workable language can be found. It would also aid the Windows porting effort by having a single, builtin scripting engine that does not have differing behaviours on different platforms. One thing that will need sorting is the binding of the C plumbing/builtin command API to the scripting language, but this shouldn't be that difficult to do. - Reece - 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
