Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2019 16:19:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, arch@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing mksh in base Message-ID: <201901270019.x0R0JpF4096103@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <32153.1548546852@kaos.jnpr.net>
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. Doesnt pdksh have a "sh" compatible mode iirc when you invoke it via a path of sh it behaves as a traditional bourne shell, also if IIRC Openbsd is doing just that, /bin/sh -> /bin/pdksh (hard link) -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201901270019.x0R0JpF4096103>