On 24/08/07, Jordan Gordeev <jgordeev@dir.bg> wrote:
> Andr=E9 Wienck wrote:
> > Salut,
> >
> > On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:03:09 +0200, Johnny Billquist
> > <bqt@softjar.se> wrote:
> >
> >>The gist of the article is otherwise to not write scripts in any shell,=
 but to
> >>use Perl or something similar instead (hey, the guy who wrote it is/was=
 a Perl
> >>consultant). But sh-advocates just jump on the "don't write in csh" as =
an
> >>argument pro sh. :-)

Oh, dear, I didn't intend to start a flamewar or even a discussion
about [c]sh; I just mentioned that at the time I decided to have one
less thing to worry about... even if all the scripts written in the
company I worked for (and still do) were written in csh... The article
is a classic, though.

> >
> >
> > Actually, my argument pro sh is: if you write POSIX shell code, it will
> > work on any system except Solaris. If you go into Bashisms or kshisms,
> > you lose.
> Solaris 10 has a POSIX-compliant sh in /usr/xpg4/bin/sh.
> I'm wondering, do you lose if you write a script in Perl, Python or Tcl,
>   as you do when you "go into Bashisms or kshisms"?
> >
> > aw
>
>
Chavdar