On Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:52:36 -0500, Roy Smith wrote:
[putolin]
> Programming languages are designed to write programs. Not only will the
> code be {used, read, maintained} for a much longer period of time, it
> will be used by people other than the original author, and on inputs
> other than originally intended. It needs to be more robust.
>
> The problem is that shells got pressed into service as programming
> languages. At that, they suck. Sure, putting a few commands into a
> file for reuse was great. Adding a few bells and whistles like
> variables and conditional execution added greatly to the power of the
> tool. But, by the time we got to 100 (or 1000!) line shell scripts with
> functions, loops, arithmetic, etc, things had clearly gone off into the
> weeds. It's just the wrong tool for that.
Really?
I have just finished a 251 line bash shell script that builds my linux
distro from scratch. It uses other bash shell scripts that have more
lines per file/script and sources the individual package build bash
scripts. I used C for the package manager which is only non bash script
part of the entire package management system. The only thing I would
like to see in bash is to be able to return a string from a function.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
