From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <599f06db0802100859l2a13a8e7o9d6a492138d44421@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:59:02 +0100
From: "Gorka Guardiola" <paurea@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] How to move to rc from sh/bash
In-Reply-To: <b954b2060802082353h694ee9a3kd008351835d9f27a@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <b954b2060802082353h694ee9a3kd008351835d9f27a@mail.gmail.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4eb6001a-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Feb 9, 2008 8:53 AM, Hongzheng Wang <wanghz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> 2. In non-interactive use (script programming), what's the main
> advantages of rc over sh/bash?

Things I like of rc:

In both interactive and non-interactive, spaces do not bite you in rc.

in bash

if [ $bla -eq $otherbla ] ; fi endif... ahhh, I can=B4t remember the
syntax and get the spaces wrong,
never know if I need endif or fi or...

if ( command ) {
}

I don=B4t need to remember spaces, or contrived grammar.

Also the operator ^ and the fact that it is distributive is really powerful=
.
Someone else said it, only one quoting simbol
(what does " bla \$e'o" do on bash?, I just invented it, but every time I s=
ee
double qoutes I start trembling)

The most important thing is that it is *simple*, it doesn=B4t have any feat=
ure
someone may have thought a shell may need because they didn=B4t know how
to use sed. It only has a well thought subset of complete features.
--=20
- curiosity sKilled the cat