-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/18/07 14:20, Douglas A. Tutty wrote: > On Sat, Aug 18, 2007 at 08:52:45PM +0200, Manon Metten wrote: >> Thanks for sharing your valuable experience. I've decided to first become >> more familiar with Bash and then I'll give Python a try. If it don't like >> it, I >> can always try something else. But ATM I think Python will be the best >> option. I've seen some code on the net that looks pretty clean and some >> examples that enable me to achieve what I want. > > I think you've hit the nail on the head. While the coding of both bash > and pyhthon _can_ be made clear, bash allows some cryptic short-cuts > that are rather common whereas python enforces clean coding. Also, I
Eh. I've written enough cryptic Python and lucid C & bash to know that Python does *not* enforce clean coding. Maybe Ada does, but I doubt it. > find that some of the bash constructs are cryptic by their nature with > no clean work-arounds. They are likely perfectly clear to a proficient > bash coder but the finer points are lost on me. > > In short, I use bash for things like dos .bat files; a sequential list > of commands. Once something requires looping or decisions, I go > straight for python. To complete the sequence, if python is too slow at What a waste. bash is *great* for looping thru lists. (Perfect? No. But still great.) > something, I recode the relevant functions in Fortran. I did that a lot > on my 486 but never on my Athlon64. :) - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGx3N8S9HxQb37XmcRAsALAKDJ+zR3/7+otHe6p3w62XC+Qa/3rwCfWmsU gaYdAd+LayYcoAZCsJVjM1s= =SiDQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]