🚀 go-pugleaf

Richard L. Goerwitz replies to Stephen Bevan, regarding Icon:

Bevan:
>> -  Unix interface is quite primitive.
>>    If you just want to use a command, you can use `callout', anything
>>    more complicated requires building a personal interpreter (not as
>>    difficult as it may sound)

Goerwitz:
>It is quite true that Icon does not provide a good low-level interface
>with the operating system.  Moreover this is unlikely to change, since
>one of the great aims of Icon has been to keep it portable.  Luckily,
>customization (as you note) is not as difficult as it might seem.

I don't buy the argument that you can't provide a good Unix interface
because of portability.

Python is designed to be just as portable as Icon (runs on the Mac,
for starters) but its Unix interface is quite good (and will improve).
The trick is that all the Unix dependencies are encapsulated in a
separate module.  Unix dependent applications won't run on non-Unix
systems, but then they are probably not needed there either.  Many
applications and library modules can be (and are!) written without the
use of explicit Unix features.  Of course, the standard I/O interface
exists on all systems.

There is no excuse for not providing a decent Unix interface for a
language that runs under Unix.  Leaving it up to local initiative
("customization") is fatal for portability.

--Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam <guido@cwi.nl>
"Life's gotta be more than meeting pretty faces and sitting on them"