Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:53:21 +0200 From: Cyrille Lefevre <cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net> To: Mark Valentine <mark@thuvia.demon.co.uk> Cc: "Brian F. Feldman" <green@FreeBSD.ORG>, Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Scripting languages (was: Re: Package system flaws?) Message-ID: <20020724135321.GB4475@gits.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <200207232048.g6NKmHQe028433@dotar.thuvia.org> References: <200207231916.g6NJGTj47459@green.bikeshed.org> <200207232048.g6NKmHQe028433@dotar.thuvia.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 09:48:17PM +0100, Mark Valentine wrote: > > There's room for a real language instead of just extending sh. > > There are plenty to choose from, but there are currently no clear candidates > for the base system. well, I have a very low knowledge about zsh, but it has many features (maybe too much, IMHO) such as associative arrays and builtin dynamic loading... > Considering the amount of code I've written in it, the Bourne shell seems > "real" enough for me. > > And it's already installed. personnaly, I prefer ksh over sh. unfortunately, ksh93 isn't usable and ksh88 (or pdksh) are missing some stuffs like associative arrays, builtin dynamic loading (pdksh), etc. Cyrille. -- Cyrille Lefevre mailto:cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020724135321.GB4475>