On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:59:49AM +0000, Emil Velikov via arch-projects wrote: > Hi Eli, > > Disclaimer: the following is a bit subtle topic, so I hope it doesn't > spur a lot of off-topic. > > On 19 February 2018 at 20:11, Eli Schwartz via arch-projects > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Catch some cases that were missed in the previous run. > > > > Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > This patch is new + refactor some changes from: > > ftpdir-cleanup,sourceballs: replace external find command with bash globbing > > > > cron-jobs/devlist-mailer | 6 +++--- > > cron-jobs/ftpdir-cleanup | 14 +++++++------- > > cron-jobs/integrity-check | 2 +- > > cron-jobs/sourceballs | 12 ++++++------ > > cron-jobs/update-web-db | 6 +++--- > > 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > Is there any performance or other technical benefit to using more bashisms?
The scripts run under bash, so why not take advantage of bash features? For example, bash's [[ and (( are less error prone and more featureful than the POSIX [, and builtins like mapfile and read (POSIX read has an extremely limited featureset) make I/O far simpler tasks. There's plenty more to like... Please don't try to talk about performance and shell in the same sentence. These are not performance-sensitive scripts, and shell is not a language to use when performance (of almost any kind) is relevant. > Reason being, that I am slowly going through different parts of Arch > making it zsh friendly. > While keeping the code brief and legible, of course. Feel free to exemplify how conversion from bash to zsh has aided your goals while retaining portability to a supermajority of Arch systems. $ pacman -Q zsh error: package 'zsh' was not found > Guessing that I've picked the wrong hobby? Almost certainly. > Thanks > Emil
