[TUHS] A few comments on porting the Bourne shell

[Clem Cole]

Bourne to program, type with Joy.

On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 11:23 PM Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> I've never bothered to learn those Bash thingies, because "expr" does
> everything that I need and is available on just about all boxes.
>
> > 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.
>
> Yep; whoever wrote CSH must've been high on something, as the syntax makes
> no sense whatsoever.
>
> > 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.
>
> I do admit to being a bit of a ZSH user...  I've never bothered to learn
> all its features, but the subset I use gets me through.
>
> -- Dave
>
-- 
Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20221230/c0b8e642/attachment.htm>