Subject: Re: bin/4167: WIBNI sh supported file/command/etc completion?
To: Ted Lemon <email@example.com>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/27/1997 21:11:07
On Sat, 27 Sep 1997, Ted Lemon wrote:
: I'm a very fast typist, and I still get a great deal of benefit out of
: shell history recall, command line editing and filename completion.
: I don't particularly care if it's in sh, since I don't use sh, but if
: other people do use sh and do care, I think it's perfectly reasonable
: to add it. I don't understand this macho desire to prevent all
: ease-of-use upgrades - if you want to be macho, use MS-DOS! I mean,
: who really *needs* multiprocessing?
Here's the deal. As-is, the SPARC version of /bin/sh is 350K. Take out
libedit and job control et. al., and make it a minimal shell, and it's about
200K. The 75% code increase for all these added "features" makes a system
that uses shell scripts heavily (read: your average server type machine)
perform less well. Probably not much, but it does make a difference on,
say, slow m68k and vax.... I'm actually compiling a stripped down sh for
m68k to test speeds on a 68030-16.
If you want job control, line editing, history, why not just _use_bash_?
It's not called the Bourne Again Shell for no reason. No commercial unixen
that I know of have extensive line editing and other features in sh, csh, or
ksh--you're typically "expected" to install your own shell for the added
Stuff. Most SVR4 variants even ship two versions of sh--'sh' and 'jsh', the
former lacking job control, and the other supplied with it. The reason for
two versions? Sh without job control loads faster!
== Todd Vierling (Personal email@example.com; Business firstname.lastname@example.org)
== I know you like the Internet, Bobby. Now go eat your Frosted Flakes.