Re: [9fans] rc vs sh

[Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net>]

On 08/28/2012 03:22 PM, dexen deVries wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 of August 2012 10:57:06 Rudolf Sykora wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am just curious...
>> Here
>> http://9fans.net/archive/2007/11/120
>>
>> Russ Cox writes he uses bash as his default shell. Does anybody know
>> the reason? Is this for practicality within the linux environment? Or
>> has he found rc too limiting?
>
> FWIW, i'm using bash as the interactive shell too, in `konsole' terminal
> emulator, because of bash' interactive line edition and command history. 9term
> doesn't fit me.

I added command line editing and history to ash under minix a decade
ago, it worked like a charm; the same ash is known as dash in Debian
world, but did not bother to submit a patch.

Whereas, the bash man-page itself explains a lot:

BUGS
     It's too big and too slow.

     There are some subtle differences between bash and traditional
     versions of sh, mostly because of the POSIX specification.

     Aliases are confusing in some uses.

     Shell built-in commands and functions are not stoppable/restartable.

     Compound commands and command sequences of the form `a ; b ; c' are
     not handled  gracefully when process suspension is attempted. When
     a process is stopped, the shell immediately executes the next
     command in the sequence. It suffices to place the sequence of
     commands between parentheses to force it into a sub-shell, which
     may be stopped as a unit.

     Array variables may not (yet) be exported.

     There may be only one active co-process at a time.

GNU Bash-4.2              2010 December 28                      BASH(1)

> all  scripting -- both standalone and in mkfiles -- goes in rc, thou.

It's strange that though ArchLinux uses bash as a system shell :P

--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman
(http://werc.homelinux.net/contact/)