[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: I'm not a huge fan of systemd

On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 12:15:42PM CEST, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> said:
> On 7/21/14, Erwan David <erwan@rail.eu.org> wrote:
> >> > 2) You have a specific syntax, and a specific semantics (what does
> >> > ExecStart, WantedBy, etc mean), that one must learn in order to simply
> >> > read this. The namles of the sections are also meaningfull. All this
> >> > defines a full fledge langaue, and I did not find any comprehensive
> >> > donc
> >> > of the language. Each doc refers to 43 or 4 other docs who refers back
> >> > to all the others, making things quite difficult to read when you need
> >> > a
> >> > complete doc and not only a reference on points that you already
> >> > partially know.
> >>
> >> You have to learn the syntax of any program in order to use it.
> >>
> >> The LSB headers of a sysvinit script have to be learned.
> >
> > Yes. SO the argument "it is a simple text file not a shell script" uis
> > false. It is as complicated to learn as a shell script.
> Rubbish. Absolute rubbish! You are full of it!
> They're declarative (shell scripts are imperative).
> They have no control flow etc (they're declarative).
> The number of constructs is trivial compared to shell scripts.
> Shell scripts have so many gotchas, so many variants of syntax for the
> same types of programming; there's just not comparison.

That makes it a weak language (at least weaker than sh), but a still a
language one need to learn.

It's just not "a text file". It's a text file with specific syntax and semantics.

Reply to: