On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:29:03PM -0700, Bill Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >> This is actually just the difference between sh and bash ...
> >> >
> >> >differences in, say, arithmetic handling and loops can sometimes
> >> >mean rewriting parts of shell scripts depending on whether it is
> >> >going to run in BSD or Linux.
> >> That's a major argument for doing things in python or perl as
> >> they are consistent across all platforms ...
> >If one is going to require the installation of something that may
> >not be part of a base system, that something might as well be bash :)
> One of the reasons I started using perl almost 20 years ago was
> that it was cleaner and more consistent than tying a bunch of
> utilities together with the shell (not to mention only having to
> master one type of regular expressions :-).
> I now use python for the vast majority of my development work
> instead of perl as I find it much cleaner with better object
> oriented features.
I'm of a similar mind, except that for OOP stuff I prefer Ruby, and for
non-OOP stuff I still generally use Perl. Python doesn't really whet my
whistle, so to speak.
> When I write shell scripts, I use a very limited set of features
> which are /bin/sh compatible. As soon as I start having to do
> anything much more than run a program against a list of files, I
> switch to python.
$language =~ s/python/Perl/
Otherwise, ditto what you said. Much like PHP, I find that shell
languages as scripting syntaxes don't really scale well in terms of
maintainability. YMMV, of course.
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Baltasar Gracian: "A wise man gets more from his enemies than a fool from
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"