On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 04:37:14PM +1200, Steve Holdoway wrote: > >agreed. > >however, it is still good for stuff that is to complex for shells. > >perl at least was designed to replace shell scripts and it works well in > >that area.
ok, i realize that this statement is to broad when taken out of context. the context i had in mind was what i said about shell scripts before. > It was designed, not as you suggest, but to offer an alternative alternative and replacement are pretty much the same thing. it can't be an alternative if it is not able to replace. > It was *not* designed to generically replace shellscripts except in this > specific area. well, i don't know what other areas shell scripts are used for except data manipulation and batch processing. and as i did say that shellscripts still are better for batch stuff, we are not necessarily in disagreement here. greetings, martin. -- cooperative communication with sTeam - caudium, pike, roxen and unix offering: programming, training and administration - anywhere in the world -- pike programmer travelling and working in europe open-steam.org unix system- bahai.or.at iaeste.(tuwien.ac|or).at administrator (caudium|gotpike).org is.schon.org Martin B�hr http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/
