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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 8489 invoked from network); 2 Jul 2021 23:18:24 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 2 Jul 2021 23:18:24 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id DDCD39C90D; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 09:18:20 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2859C86F; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 09:17:31 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 78BEC9C864; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 09:17:29 +1000 (AEST) X-Greylist: delayed 469 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at minnie.tuhs.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2021 09:17:28 AEST Received: from minun.buric.co (minun.buric.co [51.15.8.196]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6FD09C861 for ; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 09:17:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minun.buric.co (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 051BC35C0822; Sat, 3 Jul 2021 01:09:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minun.buric.co (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA81835C002A for ; Fri, 2 Jul 2021 19:09:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2021 19:09:37 -0400 (EDT) From: Steve Nickolas X-X-Sender: mary@sd-119843.dedibox.fr To: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [TUHS] [tuhs] The Unix shell: a 50-year view 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: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On Fri, 2 Jul 2021, Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote: > List readers will have their own views of the paper. My own is that, > despite its dark corners, the Bourne shell has served us > extraordinarily well, and I have been writing in it daily for decades > without being particularly bothered by the many issues raised by the > paper's authors. Having dealt with so-called command shells on > numerous other operating systems, at least the Unix shells rarely get > in my way. I still use the descendent Korn shell most of the time (often in the form of bash) on modern systems, and I don't just mean those that are Unix-like. I've found that a lot of times I can build a quick tool using bash or ksh93, or use a bash one-liner, and do something that's impossible with command.com on DOS or cmd.exe on NT and OS/2. -uso.