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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 18707 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2021 16:43:19 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 21 Dec 2021 16:43:19 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 70A889CE73; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 02:43:17 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A76D89490D; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 02:43:03 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@ccil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.b="gl4sVLwp"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 1369A9490D; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 02:43:02 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-wm1-f47.google.com (mail-wm1-f47.google.com [209.85.128.47]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 353759461A for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 02:43:01 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wm1-f47.google.com with SMTP id d198-20020a1c1dcf000000b0034569cdd2a2so2470659wmd.5 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:43:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccil-org.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nuD2IvHURSlOcDPeXUgkNPFe3Og1O2Xo2G7pmjcKIHg=; b=gl4sVLwp4LQe5lTiVpn8N/Tfr5M8HJ3BNInaLlZ8aoQDNI5tMTU77OyoqfCZKEBVy6 OeVSnfyRSNfdPHm/JEyfGF83Y+Idx0fvDbAPBv5R9sfyRG3S9ysAptgSw6GY3lIZHapc AxqNBIh0f+UdciX+hmIHPZsXMcwjBBsEREi7Uc7ap4FXbFJ30h/jfQ10DMNnr3I8ecOp SpsvuLndZAnyGk72o5ricMR66+G6mCYZ9VdoHByQro7JNkxZyNkVELB0/4wN7lZISh/m /kJ+Ma91rA86eFD220v+VjvKYN1W5sfkjDxXxwFOXYA+XsIh8O2ZdB3AZCU37scs+QsR Ajfg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=nuD2IvHURSlOcDPeXUgkNPFe3Og1O2Xo2G7pmjcKIHg=; b=fRuzAqDFQOCzRl85f5RJ9Yv87DIlszcDrC6arBjxhXQ6T4cBpToNftsv/4DuAhkE/W RUb1fo79Go8G9bkROI4ob6f3qat0VqIUz2DsrnRIrnsjx3NnVeIXDsXadCZp4vgXOgHH 3clt1elb3b8JYK5mKBUFHLgZv7HUce0ruU0auLkn2Ss6T9M2nHGcJJjXKq+PUuRPwWt8 aHGcjBTuu/ZzFBg7ivvydj2kOEPXKo50TNuKuOTgFmqh2Uu3osHMUmXyA/qKYDwngOiP e43R4gAEPjQsD3wb97eSJEpTy9a3iS+3dh7eHIIYSIVP/EnI2s9fSkouNCpfUanCeNM1 yvrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531BIqDxUiQNWvVfrv1JdelWNai6wQHOY5wZ9GFMVYeRXLSBNffL BNXEZX7F5lJDlZJbSHuYkK4oaFJFPOwHf+g9CshhXA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyhpe07o5wdwBmXkPltvMF8kMyQ1NXjYdeWs2CLYXCreTU8r7DT1zoECV1FV1huc8i/KdhcZfWELTKt0G6i6Ug= X-Received: by 2002:a7b:c101:: with SMTP id w1mr3358919wmi.149.1640104979690; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 08:42:59 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201222224306.GA28478@minnie.tuhs.org> <202012230546.0BN5kDwe028815@sdf.org> <1653639b-8e41-7437-8c0e-32564dfdd788@laposte.net> <20211221162139.GP24180@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20211221162139.GP24180@mcvoy.com> From: John Cowan Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 11:42:48 -0500 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b5887605d3aab2f5" Subject: Re: [TUHS] ksh88 source code? X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000b5887605d3aab2f5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 11:22 AM Larry McVoy wrote: I get the historical interest, but in today's world, is there any > advantage to ksh over bash? I get that lots of scripts are run > with /bin/sh and it is nice when that is fast, but aren't the cpus > fast enough these days that it sort of doesn't matter? > Ubuntu chose it as the default shell for sysvinit startup scripts in 2006 (from which it spread to BSD) precisely because it was much faster than bash. It's also smaller: bash is a memory hog. When I wrote a whole (batch) application in about 120 Perl and shell scripts in 1999-2001, I often needed multiple shell scripts running simultaneously, sometimes for concurrency and sometimes just from scripts calling other scripts. So I made sure everything ran under Solaris sh, which was a modified Bourne shell at that time and so was much lighter than bash, which I used for development. Nowadays I'd use dash in the same circumstances. --000000000000b5887605d3aab2f5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tue, Dec 21, 2= 021 at 11:22 AM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.co= m> wrote:

<= blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-l= eft:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I get the historical inter= est, but in today's world, is there any
advantage to ksh over bash?=C2=A0 I get that lots of scripts are run
with /bin/sh and it is nice when that is fast, but aren't the cpus
fast enough these days that it sort of doesn't matter?
=

Ubuntu chose it=C2=A0as the defaul= t shell for sysvinit startup scripts in 2006 (from which it spread to BSD) = precisely because it was much faster than bash.=C2=A0 It's=C2=A0also sm= aller: bash is=C2=A0a memory hog.=C2=A0

=
When I wrote a whole (batch) application=C2= =A0in about 120 Perl and shell scripts in 1999-2001, I often needed multipl= e shell scripts running simultaneously, sometimes for concurrency=C2=A0and = sometimes just from scripts calling other scripts.=C2=A0 So I made sure eve= rything ran under Solaris sh, which was a modified Bourne shell at that tim= e=C2=A0and so was much lighter than bash, which I used for development.=C2= =A0 =C2=A0Nowadays I'd use dash in the same circumstances.
<= /div> --000000000000b5887605d3aab2f5--