<ArneBab>dsmith-work: I don’t know (re string->rx). <lisbeths>is it technologically possible to use guile as system shell <lisbeths>is it possible that one day there will be a gnu system that uses lisp instead of bash? ***Furor is now known as Colere
<lilyp>"typical posix system" that is <lilyp>while bash is indeed mandated by posix, there's no reason you couldn't do most stuff in lisp <lilyp>in fact, guix already gets quite close to this <lisbeths>there are a huge number of programs designed to be accessed in the shell via bash <rekado>lisbeths: history knows scsh. Its remnants are still found in Guile. <lisbeths>is it not possible to emmulate the syntax of bash with macros <rekado>what you’re describing sounds merely like implementing bash in guile <lisbeths>bash is sometimes the first language a new programmer learns and its a language almost every programmer eventually has to learn <unmatched-paren>lisbeths: Bournish seems to be exactly that (though it's a tiny subset) <rekado>which implements more than just bash <lisbeths>it would need to be at least as good as busybox sh <lisbeths>the original bash was written in one weekend. in my opinion it is a very poor and not very extensible language <rekado>unmatched-paren: what do you mean by “guile frontend”? <unmatched-paren>rekado: I mean something like --language=guile or --language=ecmascript <lisbeths>in unix init was a shell script. the reason systemd had to be created was that shell scripts were no longer able to keep up with industrial boot and process management scripts <rekado>unmatched-paren: but does this matter? Is there any advantage to implementing it as a language on top of the compiler tower? <lilyp>performance, arity checking, ... <rekado>I mean: an advantage for the *user*? <lilyp>performance, arity checking, ... <lilyp>I don't think you should d systems programming in sh variants. <rekado>scsh exists – it’s a scheme shell. <rekado>why bother with sh syntax when you also say that it isn’t suitable? <lisbeths>the original language ken thompson wanted to port to unix was fortran <lilyp>that doesn't mean you have to write your irc client in fortran tho <lilyp>I think you misunderstand the value of scripting languages such as sh <lilyp>I can't say that for much of the javascript ecosystem <lisbeths>The shell needs full syntax macros it just does <lisbeths>back in the 1980s programmers were not ready for macros <unmatched-paren>you use the shell for quick hacks; if you need to write a large project that would benefit from syntax extensions, you should not be using shell anyway <lisbeths>macros can be used to invent languages that can invent languages that can write one-liners <lilyp>p sure lisp existed in the 80s <lisbeths>it was funded by the military via symbolics <lisbeths>The military funding dried up because their AI program was not able to deliver an AGI <lisbeths>when symbolics tanked the stock market became shy to invest in anything that used lisp <rekado>if you want macros in shell you can use m4 and eval ;) <lilyp>rekado offering galaxy brain solutions 🙃️ <unmatched-paren>no programs other than a C toolchain and the shell required, for minimal bloat!(tm) <lilyp>tbf cpp as sh preprocessor does't even sound like that bad of an idea <lilyp>well, not quite sure about that, but on its own merits <lilyp>the intricacies of C tokens don't matter, so you can just #define STUFF REPLACEMENT and it'll probably be valid and easy to understand sh ***maximed is now known as antipode
***rgherdt_ is now known as rgherdt