Hi Jennifer, * Jennifer Pioch (piochjennifer at googlemail.com) wrote: > > Shells are a religious war (just like editors), each and every time they > > come up for discussion in my experience. > > I don't think we need to be religious. ksh93 is a superset of bash. Or > do you know any feature in bash which is not available in ksh93? I > know many things which work in ksh93 and not in bash, forcing me to > use python or perl instead when ksh93 is not installed, but nothing > which can be done only in bash.
Ok, and of those things that you can do in ksh93 but not in bash are any of them relevant to the script under discussion? And that was my main point which apparently didn't get conveyed well enough. I'm all for a better mousetrap, but I like to have solid technical reasons for choosing one mousetrap over another. If there is functionality in a script that can not be achieved in a certain language (or is harder to implement than in some other language) then that is cause to visit the choice of language. Otherwise it just comes down to what the implementor is more comfortable with. Just saying, ksh93 is a superset of bash so it must be better and is the answer to all problems where bash is considered just doesn't work in my opinion. Now, saying something like ksh93 can do X (where X is a specific function or task) better (and why) than it's currently done in the current script would at least be something to consider. Cheers, -- Glenn Lagasse Solaris Install Sun Microsystems, Inc.
