Re: [PATCH] Make "git reset" a builtin. (incomplete)

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Hi,

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 22 Aug 2007, David Kastrup wrote:

quoted

Personally, I would prefer an approach of using an embedded script 
interpreter: then language incompatibilities become a non-issue. 
git-busybox sounded like a great idea for portability.

Indeed.  And while the conversion of some script into C was the right 
thing to do performance wise, many other scripts are hardly performance 
critical.

What is wrong with going from shell to C?  C _is_ portable.  Instead of 
relying on _yet_ another scripting language, introducing _yet_ another 
language that people have to learn to hack git, introducing _yet_ another 
place for bugs to hide, why not just admit that shell is nice for 
_prototyping_?

This is a narrow view of the programming world that I don't share.

C is portable indeed, which is one of its upsides.  But it has many 
downsides too for many _users_, that as a Git _developer_ you apparently 
conveniently ignore.

Why do we have to to have the same discussion over and over and over 
again?

Because, as shown by the recurring nature of this discussion, using C for 
everything is evidently not the optimal solution.


Nicolas