From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 31009 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2022 04:00:18 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 31 Dec 2022 04:00:18 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A331742361; Sat, 31 Dec 2022 13:59:41 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mcvoy.com (mcvoy.com [192.169.23.250]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE6504235F for ; Sat, 31 Dec 2022 13:59:33 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mcvoy.com (Postfix, from userid 3546) id 0D9BE35E90E; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 19:59:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 19:59:31 -0800 From: Larry McVoy To: Luther Johnson Message-ID: <20221231035931.GG5825@mcvoy.com> References: <52FB6638-AEFF-4A4F-8C2E-32089D577BA0@planet.nl> <464819f0-d2f6-2a60-6481-a194f4428b4d@case.edu> <20221230200246.GW5825@mcvoy.com> <88f83b4c-b3f9-ed87-b2fa-560fb369742a@makerlisp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <88f83b4c-b3f9-ed87-b2fa-560fb369742a@makerlisp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Message-ID-Hash: TU4YHHCO655L36B774KBTRMU4OB7HFOL X-Message-ID-Hash: TU4YHHCO655L36B774KBTRMU4OB7HFOL X-MailFrom: lm@mcvoy.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tuhs.tuhs.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: tuhs@tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: A few comments on porting the Bourne shell List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 05:08:42PM -0700, Luther Johnson wrote: > I use csh (tcsh) and bash at the command line, but straight Bourne shell > language is preferred and recommended by many for shell programming, I used > to use csh for that and got bitten by all the things that I later > discovered, those in the know had been warning about for years. Also, > "bash-isms", syntactic sugary things in bash had led me to use them as a > crutch, my scripts got simpler and more to the point when I re-wrote them > for Bourne shell language only. That was my experience. I think we'll always > have some kind of Bourne shell as the script workhorse, at last in > Linux/Unix start-up and other blood and guts stuff. When I was running my engineering team I was strict about Bourne syntax and features only. I got pushed on like crazy because "bash has this $GOODNESS whhhhhhhy can't we use it". Because we were supporting our product on pretty much every unix and if it wasn't HP-UX that had an ancient /bin/sh, it was AIX or whoever. Over and over, I won the "straight bourne shell only" battle. So I agree, if you want /bin/sh to work, Bourne shell for the win. For a login shell, bash is my shell of choice. It's bloated but I'm typing this on a 5 year old Lenova X1 Carbon with 16GB of memory and 4 cores and it's fine. It was fine a 133mhz Pentium.