[TUHS] A few comments on porting the Bourne shell

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Friday, 30 December 2022 at 19:59:31 -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.

> 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've been using bash since 16 MHz i386s.  People told me that it was
bloated, but somehow I didn't notice.

Somehow this reminds me of the expansion of EMACS: Eight Megabytes And
Continually Swapping.  8 MB?  Nowadays?  It shows how old these
prejudices are.  Now my emacs processes have round 30 MB of resident
memory and are dwarfed by 2 GB web browsers.  bash comes in at a
little over 2 MB, just not worth talking about.

Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed.  If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA.php
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 163 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20221231/fd0cf30e/attachment.sig>