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 32380 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2022 04:12:29 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (50.116.15.146) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 31 Dec 2022 04:12:29 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE2C4236C; Sat, 31 Dec 2022 14:12:05 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minun.buric.co (minun.buric.co [51.15.8.196]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 188A542363 for ; Sat, 31 Dec 2022 14:12:01 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minun.buric.co (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DA33035C1055; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 23:12:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minun.buric.co (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2A835C1039 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2022 23:12:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2022 23:12:11 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Nickolas X-X-Sender: mary@sd-119843.dedibox.fr To: tuhs@tuhs.org In-Reply-To: <20221231035931.GG5825@mcvoy.com> Message-ID: 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> <20221231035931.GG5825@mcvoy.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-ID-Hash: VOTFWEZXGHKVVDPHSNK6YVWRDLQ7ISZ2 X-Message-ID-Hash: VOTFWEZXGHKVVDPHSNK6YVWRDLQ7ISZ2 X-MailFrom: usotsuki@buric.co 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 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, 30 Dec 2022, Larry McVoy wrote: > 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. There's some variants of the Almquist shell that have bash-style command-line editing, and I can deal with that if that's /bin/sh. Usually I use bash and it's plenty fine. I generally code shell scripts for Posix sh as my baseline and start my scripts with #!/bin/sh - but sometimes I'll use #!/bin/ksh if I don't expect them to be used on another machine. ksh93 is lighter and faster than bash and the only things I miss are quirks of the command line editor. -uso.