> > Subject: Re: ksh and tab completion
> >
> > ksh is much faster and takes much less memory than bash.
> 
> I was beginning to wonder if anyone noticed....  :-)

bash is memory-eater. speed is slow too but it's not much noticable on 486
in normal use.
 
> Bash is also rather bug-ridden and not always as compatible with normal
> shells as is normally desirable....
> 
> (Un)Fortunately /bin/ksh also smaller and perhaps faster than /bin/sh:
> 
> i386 $ size /bin/sh /bin/ksh
> text    data    bss     dec     hex     filename
> 395707  9112    19964   424783  67b4f   /bin/sh
> 373739  3776    23356   400871  61de7   /bin/ksh
> 
> sparc $ size /bin/sh /bin/ksh
> text    data    bss     dec     hex     filename
> 473736  9100    19192   502028  7a90c   /bin/sh
> 446112  3804    22508   472424  73568   /bin/ksh

-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  156004 Mar 18 10:47 /bin/ksh
-r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel   86680 Mar 18 10:47 /bin/sh

relinked dynamically (i386) 
> ... still too large for a programming shell IMNSHO....
> 
> I'd be willing to try to argue on the side of removing command-line
> editing and any other non-POSIX garbage from NetBSD's /bin/sh (except of
> course a built-in test and maybe a built-in expr) now that /bin/ksh is a
> standard feature.  Then we'd have faster scripts and still a nice
> command-line shell.
yes. sh is IMHO not much usable as interactive shell but it's good in
scripts.