[Followup-To: header set to comp.unix.shell.]
On 29 Nov 2008 16:23:49 GMT, Tam Ha [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I could get away with using Bash in these cases. It has functions,
local variables and so on. Writing portable Bourne shell is not as
much fun.)
Stephane CHAZELAS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's true it was vague and misleading,
/bin is not the standard place to look for sh as far as the
POSIX standard is concerned. That doesn't mean that standard
commands (POSIX or not) cannot be found in /bin. But /bin/sh has
been made a non-standard
On 2008-11-30, Stephane Chazelas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008-11-30, 06:11(+00), Tam Ha:
Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
There's a common confusion in this in the nature of /bin/sh.
There's no standard (neither POSIX nor Unix) that specifies that
/bin/sh should be any variant of the Bourne shell.
2008-12-01, 08:51(+00), Casper H.S Dik:
Stephane CHAZELAS [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's true it was vague and misleading,
/bin is not the standard place to look for sh as far as the
POSIX standard is concerned. That doesn't mean that standard
commands (POSIX or not) cannot be found in /bin.
2008-12-1, 10:16(+00), Andre Majorel:
[...]
Tru64:
/bin/sh can behave either as a Bourne shell or a POSIX shell
(ksh88) depending on the environment
How does it decide ? argv[0] ? isatty (STDIN_FILENO) ?
That was answered in another article with a quote of the sh man
page on Tru64: via
2008-11-30, 06:11(+00), Tam Ha:
Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
There's a common confusion in this in the nature of /bin/sh.
There's no standard (neither POSIX nor Unix) that specifies that
/bin/sh should be any variant of the Bourne shell.
Sure there is, POSIX. Or rather their Austin Group. And
2008-11-30, 06:11(+00), Tam Ha:
Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
There's a common confusion in this in the nature of /bin/sh.
There's no standard (neither POSIX nor Unix) that specifies that
/bin/sh should be any variant of the Bourne shell.
Sure there is, POSIX.
[...]
And on this. First, POSIX has
In comp.unix.shell Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
The Bourne shell, as can still be found on some systems either in some
non-standard place (/bin on Solaris, /usr/old/bin on HPUX) or named
differently [...]
What do you mean with non-standard place here?
--
2008-12-1, 01:10(+01), Sven Mascheck:
In comp.unix.shell Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
The Bourne shell, as can still be found on some systems either in some
non-standard place (/bin on Solaris, /usr/old/bin on HPUX) or named
differently [...]
What do you mean with non-standard place here?
It's
Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I could get away with using Bash in these cases. It has functions,
local variables and so on. Writing portable Bourne shell is not as
much fun.)
Can you explain this? Bourne is always more portable than Bash.
That's why you'll find experienced shell
2008-11-29, 16:23(+00), Tam Ha:
Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I could get away with using Bash in these cases. It has functions,
local variables and so on. Writing portable Bourne shell is not as
much fun.)
Can you explain this? Bourne is always more portable than Bash.
That's why
Great to see quality post from real expert once in a while. Thanks!
Xah
∑ http://xahlee.org/
☄
On Nov 29, 9:03 am, Stephane CHAZELAS [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There's a common confusion in this in the nature of /bin/sh.
There's no standard (neither POSIX nor Unix) that specifies that
Stephane CHAZELAS wrote:
There's a common confusion in this in the nature of /bin/sh.
There's no standard (neither POSIX nor Unix) that specifies that
/bin/sh should be any variant of the Bourne shell.
Sure there is, POSIX. Or rather their Austin Group. And while they done
an extremely poor
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:07:22 -0500, Roy Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hard to take a popularity index seriously when Logo is at #19 and
Bourne shell at #32 ... and then they suggest that their readers can
use it to make
On 27 Nov, 01:59, Steven D'Aprano
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh please Steve. Did you read Xah's post or stop after the second
paragraph? It was amazingly *non* vituperative, and I don't just mean
for Xah.
Agreed, although I had to look vituperative up first. Is the mere
presence of Xah Lee's
Roy Smith wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hard to take a popularity index seriously when Logo is at #19 and
Bourne shell at #32 ... and then they suggest that their readers can
use it to make a strategic decision about what programming language
Steve Holden wrote:
In fact all that's really happened is that Perl has slid down the ranks,
at least temporarily. Python has been around the 6/7 mark for a while now.
Also.. can someone attempt to explain the funny correlation in
popularity over time between, for instance, Python and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Marco Mariani [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Holden wrote:
In fact all that's really happened is that Perl has slid down the ranks,
at least temporarily. Python has been around the 6/7 mark for a while now.
Also.. can someone attempt to explain the funny
On Nov 25, 2:47 pm, Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:25:51 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
QuotingXahLee[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
herald: Python surpasses Perl in popularity!
According to
?TIOBE Programming Community Index for November 2008
Xah Lee wrote:
On Nov 25, 2:47 pm, Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:25:51 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
QuotingXahLee[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
herald: Python surpasses Perl in popularity!
According to
?TIOBE Programming Community Index for November
Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bourne Shell, is pretty much replaced by Bash since several years ago.
For example, as far as i know, linuxes today don't have Bourne Shell
anymore. “sh” is just a alias to bash with some compatibility
parameter.
That used to be the case, but these days 'sh'
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 11:17:21 -0500, Steve Holden wrote:
Xah Lee wrote:
...
your remark is a bit overzealous. After all, we all know that site is
websearh based. Although it not some kinda scientific report, but it
does give some good indication of language popularity, however you
define
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:25:51 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
herald: Python surpasses Perl in popularity!
According to
?TIOBE Programming Community Index for November 2008? at
http://www.tiobe.com/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jorgen Grahn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hard to take a popularity index seriously when Logo is at #19 and
Bourne shell at #32 ... and then they suggest that their readers can
use it to make a strategic decision about what programming language
should be adopted
Quoting John Machin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
pyExcelerator is abandonware. Check out xlwt (a fork of pyExcelerator)
at http://pypi.python.org/pypi/xlwt
Thanks John.
That is very helpful.
I will move to that product..
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Quoting Lawrence D'Oliveiro [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Perl is the FORTRAN of scripting languages. Python is in some ways
like Pascal.
Java is like COBOL.
C? Who knows...
Your memory goes way back...
haha
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
herald: Python surpasses Perl in popularity!
According to
“TIOBE Programming Community Index for November 2008” at
http://www.tiobe.com/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html
it seems that Python has surpassed Perl in popularity this month!
Good for Python!
From my own personal experience
. It is being taught in schools here.. meaning it is
extremely healthy.
More popular doesn't always mean better...
Quoting Xah Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
herald: Python surpasses Perl in popularity!
According to
“TIOBE Programming Community Index for November 2008” at
http://www.tiobe.com/content
On Nov 25, 12:25 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Python, whilst very powerful, doesn't have the sheer scale of
contributors that Perl has. ie cpan. Many libraries, aren't as
sophisticated - ie spreadsheet reading and writing.
Care to elaborate on the relative unsophistication of Python
Quoting John Machin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Care to elaborate on the relative unsophistication of Python
spreadsheet reading and writing libraries?
Cheers,
John
Not really.
But one only has to use both languages on a regular basis to realise
that perl is well ahead on the libaray/module front.
On Nov 25, 2:59 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting John Machin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Care to elaborate on the relative unsophistication of Python
spreadsheet reading and writing libraries?
Cheers,
John
Not really.
But one only has to use both languages on a regular basis to realise
On Nov 25, 11:25 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perl is todays language of technical complexity. It is obscure,
complex, and is oriented towards the supremely intelligent [...]
I think you misspelled insular.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Nov 25, 11:25 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perl is todays language of technical complexity. It is obscure,
complex, and is oriented towards the supremely intelligent [...]
I think you misspelled insular.
Sounds like eLisp :-;
--
Quoting John Machin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'll try again: On what grounds do you assert that Many libraries,
aren't as sophisticated - ie spreadsheet reading and writing.? What
Python spreadsheet reading and writing libraries have you used? In
what way are they less sophisticated than their perl
On Nov 25, 4:57 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting John Machin [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I'll try again: On what grounds do you assert that Many libraries,
aren't as sophisticated - ie spreadsheet reading and writing.? What
Python spreadsheet reading and writing libraries have you used? In
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would venture so far to say that perl is todays 'C'..
Perl is the FORTRAN of scripting languages. Python is in some ways like Pascal.
Java is like COBOL.
C? Who knows...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
36 matches
Mail list logo
