Re: Running an editor from ANSI C

On 09/06/2024 16:49, David Brown wrote:

On 07/06/2024 20:38, Malcolm McLean wrote:

On 07/06/2024 15:48, David Brown wrote:

On 07/06/2024 12:46, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:31:01 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>

But many people have lots of use of programming in C without any kind of
POSIX functionality ...

>
And all those same programs work in the presence of POSIX functionality,
plus you get access to a whole lot more besides.

>
No, they do not.
>
And even if POSIX functionality were "present", whatever you mean by that, it would be of no help to many C programs.
>

>
The fact that cases keep arising where POSIX functionality would solve
problems that are discussed in this group belies your point.

>
There's no doubt that for some C programming, there are POSIX functions that could help.  And no doubt that this is the case for Malcolm's project.
>
That does not in any way demonstrate that POSIX is required for all C programming, or that C is "essentially crippled" if POSIX is not available.
>

Any idiot can write a shell using Posix.

 Only an idiot /would/ write a shell, unless they thought they could create something significantly better in some way than the multitude of existing shells.
 

>
The whole point is to it in pure C. Without a single call to a function that isn't in the C standard library.

 That's not a point - that is /pointless/.
 There are two purposes to writing a program.  One is for the fun or educational purposes of writing the program - and then you can pick whatever restrictions you want because it is purely for your own enjoyment, and it is not something that anyone will ever use.  (And I believe fun is always a perfectly good reason for doing anything in this life, as long as it doesn't bother anyone else.)
 The other purpose is to make software that people can use.  Writing something in "pure" long-outdated dialects of a language adds nothing to its use for other people.  Will your shell be faster, use fewer resources, or have more features than bash, or zsh, or PowerShell, or any alternatives people already have?  If not, it is pointless as a program.
 

>
And make it fully functional. A real shell, that people will want to really use. That's my hobby project. I'm a free man now. I've got the time. I don't have to write code that makes money any more.
>

 You have the choice.  You can write things that you want to write in the way you want to write them, simply for the fun of it.  Or you can write things that people will use.  Both are perfectly good ways to spend your time, and both can be rewarding.  But don't kid yourself that you are writing a shell that people will use, or that it is better for potential users if you impose silly and arbitrary restrictions on the way you write your code.  Be honest about what you are doing - it's a project you are working on for your own fun, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  You don't have to try to delude yourself to justify having a hobby!
 >

My shell can mount a FileSystem.xml file as a filing system and use that as backing store. No other shell can do that. That's why I need a shell. Because a shell is effectively an editor for a filing system.
--
Check out my hobby project.
http://malcolmmclean.github.io/babyxrc