Mark C. Ballew wrote:
Gary,

  
One of the guys I work with likes perl. I haven't taken a close look at 
it yet. Why, out of curiosity, would one choose perl over std. shell 
scripts, besides the fact that they hurt the brain trying to read them?
    

Sounds like you opened a can of worms.

I use shell because there are no dependences. Shell works on all unicies
too.  Some operating systems *cough freebsd* don't even ship perl
anymore!

Mark

_______________________________________________
RLUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug

  
hahaha... I must like worms, I do it all the time!

I use shell scripts on NT for exactly that reason. I use vi for the same kind of reason. A friend of mine gets mad at me for using vi when emacs is "more powerful" and "more friendly." Well, the first time he sat down to a system that didn't have emacs installed, I had to do an edit for him... vi can be counted on. I've forgotten nearly everything I knew about vi since then. Oh yeah, another thing I personally didn't like about emacs... lisp! Ugh! hehe

Don't get me wrong, I was definitely not a vi guru, but it's the same kind of thing you're talking about. I don't use "enhancers" (like REXX) for scripts on NT, and the bash shell is more powerful than cmd... can't really see the need for another interpreted language before I learn the default. Besides I'm not smart enough to write scripts that are more powerful than those that the shell will handle just fine. <g>

I'm not opposed to taking a hard look at perl. But I want to get pretty darn good with shell first. Right now, some of that stuff looks like greek. I guess it will be a while. :-)

-Gary

_______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug

Reply via email to