begin quoting Mike Marion as of Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 04:46:20PM -0800: > Quoting Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > "Programming in bash considered harmful and arrogant" > > Good lord, I hope you're not implying that shell scripts should be done > in *csh shells.
Depends on the problem -- I've seen scripts where the csh version worked and the sh version was necessarily baroque; not often, I'll grant you, but I've seen it. 99% of the time, csh does Just Fine. But no, the real implication is that using /bin/bash instead of /bin/sh (or, god forbid, linking /bin/sh to /bin/bash) is harmful and arrogant. > We have a ton of wrappers here they wrote in csh and boy does > it cause all kinds of problems. Poorly written scripts cause all kinds of problems no matter what they are written in. > Things like "rediculously long path truncated" or just Well, that's what you get for using colored paths. > bizarre environment problems when there are really long variables. See above about poorly-written scripts. (And how long is "really long" in this case?) > I've written a few pretty large bash scripts.. works pretty well. Though > for data munging I'd use perl or something. Or ksh is really slick for > interactive scripts. I'd suggest that *all* bash or tcsh scripts be thrown out -- if you can't write it in sh, csh, or ksh, use perl or tcl instead. -Stewart "'Portable' does not mean 'Wherever GNU tools are installed'" Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
