Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 13:28:08 -0700 From: Doug <Doug@gorean.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What to tell to Linux-centric people?! Message-ID: <37A0B958.1E4251D6@gorean.org> References: <199907292007.NAA29868@usr06.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: > > You can't blame the shell itself if some twit writes a script > > that's supposed to be portable using non-portable scripting > > conventions, can you? > > Yes, I can. Scripting should be, by definition, twit-proof. No > exceptions. No matter how twit-proof you make something, they will always come up with a better twit. > > I'm one of the biggest Bash advocates I know, but whenever I > > write sh scripts I am very careful to use only standard sh bits. > > Well, you aren't a twit. 8-). Not this week anyway. :) > An apt analogy would be to say that the person who dies without > ever getting into an automobile accident didn't need to use > seatbelts, and so should have had the option of buying a car > without them. Hmmm... I'm not sure that I understand your metaphor. It sounds like you're advocating a "One true shell" approach, with no non-POSIX sh things added to it. While there might be some merit to it, it's not a very unix-y thing to advocate. If different shells are bad, how are different unices good? I strongly believe that you can't blame the tool if the craftsman uses it improperly. > > In fact, Bash is probably the most POSIX compliant shell going, > > especially when invoked as sh. > > Does this turn off extensions? Yes. Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37A0B958.1E4251D6>