[TUHS] A few comments on porting the Bourne shell

[Larry McVoy]

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:51:26PM -0500, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 12/30/22 1:25 PM, Paul Ruizendaal wrote:
> >
> >London and Reiser report about porting the shell that ???it required by far the largest conversion effort of any supposedly portable program, for the simple reason that it is not portable.??? By the time of SysIII this is greatly improved, but also in porting the SysIII user land it was the most complex of the set so far.
> 
> Have you read
> 
> http://www.collyer.net/who/geoff/sh.tour.pdf
> 
> and looked at http://www.collyer.net/who/geoff/v7sh.tar ?
> 
> In the limited literature on Bourne Shell porting, this is authoritative.

Is there are reason to hang on to the Bourne shell?  Maybe shell scripts?
Does it perform better than ksh or bash?

Don't get me wrong, I much prefer the sh syntax over csh syntax, but 
I'd never go back to the Bourne shell as my login shell.  Way too much
useful stuff in ksh/bash.