[TUHS] A few comments on porting the Bourne shell
Sven Mascheck
mascheck at in-ulm.de
Sat Dec 31 06:42:42 AEST 2022
Larry McVoy on 30.12.2022 21:02:
> > [SysIII port]
> 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.
I'd like the idea of "preserving a heirloom in its natural environment"
(and even more effort went in https://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html)
let alone this does not prevent from adding modern shells...
I guess in interactive use most users would only miss one thing: the
history & line editing capability?
Side notes to that:
* By intention, the almquist shell (a port due to the Berkeley/ATT
mess) initially had no history. From the package file DIFFERENCES [1],
"History. It seems to me that the csh history mechanism is mostly
a response to the deficiencies of UNIX terminal I/O. Those of you
running 4.2 BSD should try out atty (which I am posting to the net
at the same time as ash) and see if you still want history."
* and in "ksh - An Extensible High Level Language" David Korn writes:
"Originally the idea of adding command line editing to ksh was
rejected in the hope that line editing would move into the terminal
driver." [2]
I have always wondered, what such a central terminal driver driven
history/line-editing would have felt like.
[1] https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/ash/DIFFERENCES
[2] https://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/bourne/korn.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20221230/5b87fcee/attachment.htm>
More information about the TUHS
mailing list