Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 5/22/85; site cbosgd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!mark
From: mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.unix,net.info-terms
Subject: Re: Terminfo()--Ideas needed. System V
Message-ID: <2146@cbosgd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-May-86 02:16:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbosgd.2146
Posted: Sun May 18 02:16:26 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 19-May-86 04:43:06 EDT
References: <1135@bunker.UUCP> <155@molihp.UUCP> <2774@pegasus.UUCP> <1553@ecsvax.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Oh
Lines: 18
Keywords: terminfo,termcap
Xref: watmath net.unix-wizards:18106 net.unix:7890 net.info-terms:967

In order to compare the difference between termcap and terminfo with
something we are all more familiar with, I'm paraphrasing Mr. Todd's
posting, substuting a different example.  Let's compare C (a compiled
language) with shell (an interpreted language) and observe that binary
versions of UNIX still have readable (and editable) shell scripts.

>While I won't dispute the claim that C is more expressive, I
>still find it to be a HUGE step backwards in design: there just isn't
>sufficient justification for making the active, working program a
>compiled binary file -- PARICULARLY when AT&T then doesn't include the
>sources to the C programs. As shipped, the description for
>the xyztool is noticibly broken. To fix it, I'll have to completely
>rewrite the entire thing, since the readable (modifyable) version isn't
>available.  The shell isn't as expressive, perhaps, but I can write and
>modify shell descriptions easily. C is a loser.  Let us
>hope that Berkeley continues to support the better organized design, and
>doesn't attempt to corrupt BSD UNIXs too badly in the name of
>compatability.