On 02/18/2014 10:45 PM, Jim Klimov wrote:
I have yet to notice any functional-equivalency downsides of old sh vs. ksh (or bash for that matter), although the memory footprint comparison was often cited as a difference.
As one of the original advocates for including ksh93 in Solaris, I did at one point list the risks of breaking existing shell scripts. (I don't have a copy of that, could be in the original RFEs) Major points were: * Most any /bin/sh script should just work in ksh93, as the Bourne shell feature set is limited, and ksh93 is a superset of that. * ksh scripts relying on shell arithmetic can fail in ksh93, which by default calculates intermediate results in floating point. Not really functional: Running a snippet of code in ksh93 is typically faster than any of bourne, bash or ksh88. Henk _______________________________________________ oi-dev mailing list oi-dev@openindiana.org http://openindiana.org/mailman/listinfo/oi-dev
