I go on any system, fucking perl. I look at scripts written by IT, not shell scripts, fucking perl. I try openBSD, fucking perl. FreeBSD? fucking perl. Default packages on linux even.. no python, no ruby, FUCKING PERL WHAT THE FUCK PERL PERL PERL
I go to any city, fucking niggers. I look at bars opened by ITalians, not white people, fucking niggers. I try the library, fucking niggers. Freeway? fucking niggers. Public transportation on weekdays even.. no jews, no asians, FUCKING NIGGERS WHAT THE FUCK NIGGERS NIGGERS NIGGERS
I try openBSD, fucking perl. FreeBSD? fucking perl. Default packages on linux even.
I know some packages in OpenBSD have perl for ./configure, but FreeBSD? I was sure they use .sh when they need scripting, esp. in the /usr/ports/sysutils/ directory. Linux is something else (a mess, just a mess).
I'm pretty sure it's absolutely impossible to write proper input sanitation in bash.
Bash is a Turing-complete programming language. If it is even theoretically possible for a given computation to be performed, then it is theoretically possible to perform it in Bash.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-03 14:13
>>14 .sh = Bourne shell, the ancient one. Done for compatibility for older systems. You would not believe how many are still out there, even using 4.4BSD-Lite *ahem yahoo*
Scsh is a fun beta project, but the other options are better.
>>15 Indeed, but have you built a shell yet that talks well with the OS components/syscalls? Zsh does not count.
Disallowing counter-points that would prove you wrong is a great way to win an argument.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-03 14:58
>>18 I mean it is a cheating creating an implementation of embedding zsh api to call the syscalls. It's great, convenient, and overly massive. If you use it, its like just giving up and using Emacs.
Would it be awesome just to have a native scheme shell, nothing more?
That what I meant it does not count.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-03 15:31
>>19 Piping data would be very unintuitive in a Scheme shell.
tm;dl illegibility = unmaintainable; ++job_security; from Deadcode()
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-03 21:54
>>29 I can't remember the last time I heard of someone getting a perl job offer. All those MISSION CRITICAL ENTERPRISE APPLICATIONS written using only whitespace have been phased out in favor of the much more maintainable system of using obscure COBOL on punchcards. Larry Wall's plan backfired; Bjarne did it the right way and they'll be people working out multiple inheritance problems in hello world applications years from now, because it's not so obvious what it's for.
>>36 That's awfully verbose. I'm not gonna type all that.
Name:
Anonymous2015-11-27 22:42
>>37 How about this: cat file.txt | grep needle The REPL wraps input in a de-infixing reader macro, turning it into (| (cat file.txt) (grep needle)) You can, of course, type in (| (cat file.txt) (grep needle)) and have it work in the same way. Substitute pipe for | if your implementation supports |arbitrary symbols|.
Name:
Anonymous2015-11-28 1:54
>>37 Lisp syntax makes it more efficient to use in text editors. And you cn always use a reader macro.
Name:
Anonymous2015-11-28 2:00
>>37 Lisp has an explicit AST. There is no ambiguity. The biggest pain in the ass about shells, perl, and non-Lisp expressions in general is the fucking implicit ambiguity. Put some goddamn parentheses around it and it always fucking works.
Name:
Anonymous2015-11-28 8:50
>>40 Postfix expressions are superior, no ambiguity and no parenthesis either. file.txt cat | needle grep
>>42 No, you faggot, the problem with postfix is the ambiguity of how many parameters a function takes, for shit like cat.
If you make cat take an int for how many files to process, it's more verbose shit that's already implicit in other languages: shit fuck piss 2 catn ...
If you make cat take only 1 file at a time, then you've got to do weird combining shit, which normal Unix cat already takes care of: shit fuck cat piss cat combine-stdout-shit ... and that's assuming combine-stdout-shit is fixed to just 2 args. try concatenating 3 files and it gets stupider.
It's all shit. Just put some God-damned parentheses around them, you fuckheads.
Name:
Anonymous2015-11-28 12:26
Look ma, no parentheses:
file.txt toUpper cat/2 | needle grep
Name:
Anonymous2015-11-28 12:41
>>45 Look ma, a clusterfuck of hand-picked conventions baked into function names instead of actual control over number of parameters. Fuck off.
Name:
Anonymous2015-11-28 12:58
>>46 They don't have to be conventions, dipshit. I.e. the language can make it a syntax error to call a b functionOfTwo in place of a b functionOfTwo/2. There you have it, actual control over number of parameters without any parentheses or FOIC.
Name:
Anonymous2015-11-28 13:01
>>47 How are you going to implement Lisp's progn then?
>>47 What the fuck? I already said in the beginning of >>44 that that's stupid and redundant. Now you want to roll that into infix punctuation within symbol syntax? I can't handle this level of stupidity.
"Here's why $X is stupid" "Lol, we should do $SAME_X becaws its bettar! lololol"
Name:
Anonymous2015-11-28 16:36
>>51 You have some serious cognition problems. Go see a doctor.
Name:
Anonymous2015-11-28 18:56
>>51 Why would you use $X and $SAME_X to represent the same variable?
>>53 Because I'm dealing with an idiot who doesn't know what I already said, and wanted to express its similarity with extra redundancy in English as well as programmatically.
>>59 Pop quiz: Within cat fuck | grep shit, where is the |? A. In front of its operands (prefix) B. After its operands (postfix) C. Between its operands (infix) (faggot)
Note: The two operands are, respectively, cat fuck and grep shit.
>>60 Maybe it's like Smalltalk. The message `fuck' could be passed as the message to the object `cat', while `|', `grep', and `shit' are parameters. I don't know, I don't use EUNUCHS.