Home
| Calendar
| Mail Lists
| List Archives
| Desktop SIG
| Hardware Hacking SIG
Wiki | Flickr | PicasaWeb | Video | Maps & Directions | Installfests | Keysignings Linux Cafe | Meeting Notes | Blog | Linux Links | Bling | About BLU |
Derek D. Martin wrote: | | > And by the way, was is the advantage of using bash then? | | The advantage to using bash is that it is mostly compatible with the | Bourne Shell, and the Korn Shell, and (AFAIK) 100% compatible with the | POSIX shell (which is based on the Bourne and Korn shells). The | Bourne shell, or more recently the POSIX shell is the standard shell | for system administration. Knowing it is a Good Thing(tm). Also, | scripting in C shell is generally considered brain-damaged. There's a good historic irony here. Bill Joy apparently originally wrote csh as an improved programming tool, and didn't intend it as an interactive shell to replace sh. There have been a number of analyses explaining how he failed on both goals. For any number of reasons, csh is much more difficult to use as a scripting language than sh. But the syntax is better than sh's for a human typist. Also, csh introduced a history mechanism that turns out to be easier on the human brain than the different one introduced in ksh. So csh and its clones are widely preferred as an interactive shell, even by people who write their shell scripts for sh or ksh or bash. Of course, there are now even more people who prefer to use perl, tcl or python when the script grows to a dozen lines or so. These are all much better programming languages than any of the *sh interpreters.
BLU is a member of BostonUserGroups | |
We also thank MIT for the use of their facilities. |