"your post was pretty hard to follow. Maybe you were questioning the fact that I wrote it in bash instead of C?"
Yes, you find that I didn't mean what you did.
I was talking strictly under the subject of the story "a real bourne shell for Linux".
I was presenting the fact that a real Bourne should be implemented from a praxis standpoint. "since you don't know what my script did, you must be making an argument against the existence (or at least use) of scripting languages?
Repeat, I was following the story.
Not against scripts, but "why worry so much about creating a Bourne shell?": since bourne uses high-level programming it would be useful for certain users (pete-classic, you have to alternate bash and sh in the case you did present us) and it's easy to implement, then I just think here's a fuzz about something which it could be done before!
I simply don't want to worry about lack of any option for my scripts.
Why a Bourne shell? It's a personal question, like choosing to use the right hand or the left hand.
Left native Bourne as an option for whose need something less interpreter (I mean "don't syntax-forced"), most interface.
Years ago open-source programmers venerate bash (supposedly binaries are less resource-hogs), however, they find that a OS' behavior induces actually (in the age of Pentium II) to a tad rely on processing power (well not Windows XP, hahaa...oh, I'm sorry) when supporting interfaces.
Real demand is while running applications, (many programmed in C, dude) those pratically own a cpu(s).
From me, nothing against a true Bourne shell for Linux.
None has to berate Linux, the kernel and sources were done by programmers in the reason of they had to do an exciting and cool thing.
We have to get motivation and we have to do a new thing: Bourne shell for Linux.
I also used to work for a post delivery company and UPS has fame of being an efficient company, unfortunately they have managed to be more flexible (they have an impressive variety of services) and with FedEx nowadays ruling over large-sized packages and international shipping there's no option beyond go UPS only for document delivery.
Make a company,
Income some people to work for you,
Make a contract with UPS,
Send UPS a employee to learn how to pack,
Now order the trained employee to pack everything you want,
And ship everything you want.
Obvious, the rest of your employees have to make the company profitable to sustain your contract;)
I hope it doesn't wreck...I wonder if the sattelite has a pane it could be recalled or if they hold a suplementar.
Thus, they'd spend more bucks than that's been reported;)
Like billcopc said and I'll summarize, a 3D game engine is designed to be fast and its render params produce good-quality results, but it isn't near high-quality, something I like to add into this thread there's related to the Quake III engine:
- It's a proven project
- It's a reference to programmers
- It has wireframe technology with NURBS-like potencialities
- It can be easily modeled according to developers' intentions
- It analizes objects that won't be visible in the rendered scene and it doesn't spend time processing such objects
Some drawbacks:
- Most floating-point operations are done using single-precision format rather double-precision in order to save bandwidth and to increase performance - hey, QIII engine was designed for 3D games then graphics processing is done along other tasks (physics, sound, artificial intelligence, etc. processing)
- 3D models must keep compatibility between QIII engine (developed for games) and the 3D modeler software (developed for CAD)
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks ;)
"your post was pretty hard to follow. Maybe you were questioning the fact that I wrote it in bash instead of C?"
Yes, you find that I didn't mean what you did. I was talking strictly under the subject of the story "a real bourne shell for Linux".
I was presenting the fact that a real Bourne should be implemented from a praxis standpoint.
"since you don't know what my script did, you must be making an argument against the existence (or at least use) of scripting languages?
Repeat, I was following the story.
Not against scripts, but "why worry so much about creating a Bourne shell?": since bourne uses high-level programming it would be useful for certain users (pete-classic, you have to alternate bash and sh in the case you did present us) and it's easy to implement, then I just think here's a fuzz about something which it could be done before!
I simply don't want to worry about lack of any option for my scripts.
Why a Bourne shell? It's a personal question, like choosing to use the right hand or the left hand. Left native Bourne as an option for whose need something less interpreter (I mean "don't syntax-forced"), most interface. Years ago open-source programmers venerate bash (supposedly binaries are less resource-hogs), however, they find that a OS' behavior induces actually (in the age of Pentium II) to a tad rely on processing power (well not Windows XP, hahaa...oh, I'm sorry) when supporting interfaces. Real demand is while running applications, (many programmed in C, dude) those pratically own a cpu(s). From me, nothing against a true Bourne shell for Linux.
None has to berate Linux, the kernel and sources were done by programmers in the reason of they had to do an exciting and cool thing.
We have to get motivation and we have to do a new thing: Bourne shell for Linux.
- The power is ours, the money is with MS.
I also used to work for a post delivery company and UPS has fame of being an efficient company, unfortunately they have managed to be more flexible (they have an impressive variety of services) and with FedEx nowadays ruling over large-sized packages and international shipping there's no option beyond go UPS only for document delivery.
There's a solution:
;)
Make a company,
Income some people to work for you,
Make a contract with UPS,
Send UPS a employee to learn how to pack,
Now order the trained employee to pack everything you want,
And ship everything you want.
Obvious, the rest of your employees have to make the company profitable to sustain your contract
And of course if they lie, simply while the true flourishes they would be in threat.
(reporter) Q: Why the real data storage capability of ENVISAT has been hindered?
(minister) A: Some transcriptions of measuring calculations hadn't correct.
Q: Who's the responsible or responsibles by this error?
A: We believe that the miscorrect information came from a typo, combined with additional errors doing the calculations, and thus, the mistaken result.
We know how governments love to spy anything, include the internet we're using. ;)
Please don't forget this SAT was endorsed by European governments
I hope it doesn't wreck...I wonder if the sattelite has a pane it could be recalled or if they hold a suplementar. Thus, they'd spend more bucks than that's been reported ;)
Like billcopc said and I'll summarize, a 3D game engine is designed to be fast and its render params produce good-quality results, but it isn't near high-quality, something I like to add into this thread there's related to the Quake III engine:
- It's a proven project
- It's a reference to programmers
- It has wireframe technology with NURBS-like potencialities
- It can be easily modeled according to developers' intentions
- It analizes objects that won't be visible in the rendered scene and it doesn't spend time processing such objects
Some drawbacks:
- Most floating-point operations are done using single-precision format rather double-precision in order to save bandwidth and to increase performance - hey, QIII engine was designed for 3D games then graphics processing is done along other tasks (physics, sound, artificial intelligence, etc. processing)
- 3D models must keep compatibility between QIII engine (developed for games) and the 3D modeler software (developed for CAD)