Subject: Re: ksh as option for shell [Re: Bash as Option for Shell]
To: Chapman Flack <email@example.com>
From: Douglas Wade Needham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/17/2004 22:10:17
Like Chap said, there are differences. While I too like pdksh (it is
loads better than bash IMNSHO), it is a real PITA when I go to use
scripts I developed for the "real thing" on UnixWare or other UN*X
systems, only to find that I was relying on yet another feature that
pdksh never supported. There are some really subtle differences in
functions between pdksh and ksh93, and that has bitten me a few times.
Then there are some other things that I find myself occasionally
wanting, like true associative arrays, which pdksh does not handle.
Quoting Chapman Flack (email@example.com):
> > I actually sorta like pdksh. The licensing terms are less
> > restrictive, and I don't see any reason to favor one
> > implementation over another just because it got there first.
> There's an enormous functionality gap. ksh is a full
> standalone/embeddable scripting language that can be dynamically
> extended with new commands and disciplines or embedded as scripting
> language by a program, operate on arbitrary binary I/O, do date/time
> computations, documentation generation, i18n and l10n, built on reusable
> libraries that support all of those functions, stackable I/O disciplines
> and filters, and I'll stop because you get the picture. pdksh is a
> shell program that accepts a language kinda like ksh's from ~11-12 years
> I don't have anything against pdksh as pdksh, but I do think it's
> inconvenient when an OS ships with a program named /bin/ksh that won't
> run ksh scripts.
Douglas Wade Needham - KA8ZRT UN*X Consultant & UW/BSD kernel programmer
Email: cinnion @ ka8zrt . com http://cinnion.ka8zrt.com
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own. Since I don't want them, why
should my employer, or anybody else for that matter!