Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 15:54:12 -0800 From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, <arch@FreeBSD.org>, <freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org>, <sjg@juniper.net> Subject: Re: Importing mksh in base Message-ID: <32153.1548546852@kaos.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <201901252129.x0PLTQAn008365@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <201901252129.x0PLTQAn008365@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> wrote: > Interactively ksh93's command completion listing looks unconventional > but it functions the same. > > However programmatically it's the standard. Large commercial vendors, > like Oracle, still require ksh for its array handling among other > things. pdksh (hence I assume mksh) has had array support for ages. The only thing I ever found it useful for was cd history, and I actually have an implementation of that for sh that does not need arrays. > It has that advantage. For embedded this is an advantage. However if > embedded is using ksh as a scripting language mksh and pdksh aren't As noted earlier I've used [pd]ksh as shell for 30 years. I do *not* write ksh scripts (except for .kshrc etc ;-) The beauty of ksh as interactive shell is it's (mostly) compatability with /bin/sh - which scripts should be written in. Now on some systems (HPUX springs to mind ;-) /bin/sh is so bad that one has to use ksh to run scripts - but they are still sh scripts.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?32153.1548546852>