On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Kamil Rytarowski <n...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 24.02.2012 11:48, Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > > > > I disagree. For simple, file system centric tasks, shell scripts > > are just the technology of choice. > > I agree that it's used for simple tasks to execute things, but I disagree > about centric tasks. It's in use o > > For example it's in use in Udev here. > The vast majority of Linux, and even more direct UNIX derivative, distributions carry BASH as a standard. If they don't, they are most likely fully proprietary or serve some specific purpose where the designers did not want BASH for whatever their reasons. The argument can be made for any other programming or scripting language available across platforms. Just because it can be done does not mean that it is in the majority of users' best interest for it to be done. Sure, we could spend our entire lives re-writing everything on our systems for the niche users that still swear that COBOL is the best language on the planet, that doesn't make it practical for daily use or for the target audience. If on your machine you would like to write the scripts in Perl (or any other language) and then create distro specific packages and distribute them so that other like-minded individuals can use them, more power to you. I personally prefer Python as a language for a great many things, that doesn't mean that I plan on petitioning every developer on all of the mailing lists that I subscribe to re-write all of their scripts in Python on the off chance that they will see my zealotry and claim it as a worthwhile endeavor. Be realistic.
