***maximed is now known as antipode
***taiju` is now known as taiju
***taiju` is now known as taiju
<ArneBab>sneek: later tell lisbeths: I’d be careful in evaluating bash: sh is what you get when you seek for a language optimized to calling programs with some arguments — shelling out to them — and systemd did not have to be created because of deficiencies in sh: when systemd got created, Gentoo-people had already implemented OpenRC on top of shell-scripts that provided the same features but in a much cleaner and much better integrated way. A <ArneBab> runscript-execution environment that provided a small number of additional features needed and they had a clean dependency language that did not need all init scripts to be re-implemented. What an init system does is calling programs. Shell-code is very well suited to that. There are many domains for which shell isn’t suited well, but OpenRC proved that init is not one of them. <antipode>Myself, I find bash (and more generally, anything 'sh'-ish) more convenient that lisps for just starting programs -- compare 'guix build foo > log" with (use-modules (guix build utils)) (with-output-to-file "log" (lambda () (invoke "guix" "build" "foo")). <rekado_>scsh: (run (guix build foo) (> log)) ***taiju` is now known as taiju
<mwette>take that back. I didn't. Still an issue. Only happens when I include the def for `doit' <mwette>(The procedure sf is defined, just not shown.) ***rgherdt_ is now known as rgherdt
***haugh[m] is now known as haugh
<dsmith-work>A pet peeve of mine: "bash" is *not* bourne shell or posix shell. <dsmith-work>I wish bash documentation would identify bashisms nore clearly. <lilyp>ArneBab: whether OpenRC is cleaner than systemd is probably a hotly debated issue