On Fri, February 24, 2012, Brad Jorsch wrote: > Every system will have a bourne-compatible shell installed as /bin/sh, > or MANY things will break. Does wmaker.inst have bashisms, or is all > this talk about bash not entirely accurate?
There are no bashisms in that script. The code is fairly portable. Having read the word "BASH" all the time I wonder if the OP really knows what he is writing about. I don't see any point in even arguing about this. And honestly, having written several thousands of LOCs in Bourne Shell, bash and Perl I simply cannot agree that Perl code is in general easier to understand and maintain (actually, I've seen much more write-only code written in Perl than in just about any other language). Finally another general point - if you need to copy / move stuff around in the file system and do simple filtering jobs, the shell is the most natural way to do this. A shell script is thus the most natural way of automating this. I would never trust any system administrator who does not like the shell. Cheers, M'bert -- ----------- / http://herbert.the-little-red-haired-girl.org / ------------- =+= Dann freuen wir uns und gehen weiter und denken noch im Kuessegeben: Wie nah sind uns manche Tote, wie tot sind uns manche, die leben. -- Wolf Biermann -- To unsubscribe, send mail to wmaker-dev-unsubscr...@lists.windowmaker.org.
