Re: Replace GNU bc?
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 12:14 PM Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 11:03:50AM -0700, Gavin Howard wrote:
> > I am the author of an implementation of POSIX bc with all GNU
> > extensions (https://github.com/gavinhoward/bc).
>
> > Would there be any interest in replacing the GNU bc with my bc in
> > Debian? I would be willing to do the work to package it.
>
> I'd say that _replacing_ is out of question at this point, but your
> implementation would be very welcome as either something coinstallable or at
> least an alternative. Once it's tested and so on, there might be time to
> flip the default.
>
> bc is used mostly by Unix greybeards, and that's the kind of people who
> really don't like regressions.
>
> Mostly, we'd want to see a compelling benefits why it's be better than the
> mature and well-tested GNU version.
>
> > * It can be used in Linux kernel builds.
>
> So can GNU bc.
>
> > * It is zero-dependency and builds without modification on any
> > POSIX-compliant platform.
>
> Nice, but not an upside on full-blown Debian installations, and bc is not a
> part of busyboxy scenarios around here.
>
> > * It has history without needing libreadline or libeditline.
>
> libreadline is present on the vast majority of systems already.
>
> > * It comes with full man pages.
>
> That's a pretty basic requirement.
>
> > * It comes with some extra math operators, extra math functions, and extensions.
>
> Unix history shows that resisting to add such goodies is not humanly
> possible even for projects whose stated purpose is to remove all bloat. So
> obviously your project has some. And those may or may not be nice to have.
>
> > * It includes a full dc (except for the dangerous and unnecessary "!"
> > command) that uses a symlink to use the same binary (like busybox and
> > toybox).
>
> Reasonable.
>
> > * Its license is more permissive.
>
> Not an upside for us at all (but not a downside either).
>
>
> Thus, the big question is: "why?". GNU bc doesn't suffer from
> unacceptable evels of bloat, and it's not used in perfomance-critical
> scenarios, so speed is not a concern. There's a cost to switching.
>
> I'd have your implementation under a different name (sort of like mawk vs
> gawk), and give it time to prove itself. And when people say your version
> is better and GNU bc is obsolete, then we'll talk...
>
> How does this plan sound to you?
Sounds good to me! I am confident that my bc has less bugs (my release
process is rigorous), so I believe that people will like it better.
I will create a new package. I will probably call it hbc to follow the
same style as mawk and gawk. Suggestions for the name are also
welcome.
> Meow!
> --
> ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
> ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Remember, the S in "IoT" stands for Security, while P stands
> ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ for Privacy.
> ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀
Gavin H.
Reply to: