From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Jan 27 8: 2: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from guru.mired.org (dsl-64-192-6-133.telocity.com [64.192.6.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F37FD37B41F for ; Sun, 27 Jan 2002 08:01:36 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 5185 invoked by uid 100); 27 Jan 2002 16:01:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15444.9309.893400.512726@guru.mired.org> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2002 10:01:33 -0600 To: Cliff Sarginson Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: shells confusion In-Reply-To: <8081834@toto.iv> X-Mailer: VM 6.90 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`;h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ From: "Mike Meyer" X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.44 (Python 2.2; freebsd-4.5-RC-i386) Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Cliff Sarginson types: > On Sat, Jan 26, 2002 at 09:22:34PM +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > Well, what an interesting set of replies ! > Someone has pointed out that the Bourne Shell does itself have some > varieties. (For the person who mentioned it I believe that the original > original Bourne Shell, as used on the 6th Edition, was re-written I > recall for the 7th Edition, I am not even sure if it was by Mr Bourne. Well, I mentioned it among others. I don't believe the Unix v6 /bin/sh was the Bourne shell. There were just to many things so many things it didn't have. There was a thing called "ash" floating around, which was supposedly a precursor to csh, but I never chased that down. Of course, the v6 C compiler wasn't what most of us would think of as a C compiler. It spelled "+=" as "=+", for one thing. We used what was called the photo-7 compiler, which was the C compiler described in 1st edition K&R ported to v6. > And yes, as noted on the manual page, bash is huge and slow, neither of > which I find a reason to *not* use it, since speed is rarely an issue in > a shell script (it would not be written in script if speed was a > critical issue in the first place). I think the best reason to avoid bash is that sh is far more portable. Besides, I never get to the point of needing things that sh doesn't do reasonably that bash might, as I've switched to Python by then. http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message