From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:48:44 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <9dc4876fed9bcc078ed61f9cbe7e3994@kw.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: <20121025143617.646abbbe@vardo.ethans.dre.am> References: <20120828150521.GA10731@intma.in> <20120828153548.GC11005@intma.in> <20120831222403.GA81150@intma.in> <0d2163b339e8b9211593ad0c636e070a@brasstown.quanstro.net> <20121025143617.646abbbe@vardo.ethans.dre.am> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] rc vs sh Topicbox-Message-UUID: c955a61e-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > sorcery is a nice package manager; the only one i've ever actually > liked, but yeah, it's a monster. a short time after i stopped using it > i was interested to see someone report he'd actually reduced the size > of his shell script by converting it from bash to ordinary sh; using > the proper tools instead of bashisms had shortened it. i wondered what > would happen to sorcery if so converted, but it was just idle > speculation. i have never seen a very large shell script that i found readable. of course the waters have been polluted by gnu configure scripts, but i still think the idea is invalid. just as one makes every attempt to keep a c function from exceeding a page or so, it follows that one should keep the individual units in shell scripts small. the individual unit of scripting is imho ... a script, not a function. this is because it is too hard to do much isolation within a script. even with functions. patch/* is a good example of a structured set of scripts. - erik