[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: mksh import
,--- You/christos%astron.com@localhost (Sat, 8 Jan 2011 16:00:26 +0000 (UTC))
| >> ,--- You/Kent (Tue, 4 Jan 2011 20:41:49 -0600) ----*
| >> | Ksh93 has shown itself to be much more efficient than other shells.
| >> |
| >> | IMO mksh is not on par with ksh93 in performance
| All of that is very interesting, but once you "ln /bin/ksh93
| /bin/sh" you've destroyed any chance of keeping your shell scripts
| portable to the posix /bin/sh subset.
Who'd do this horrible thing?! :-)
( AIX, that's who (/bin/sh == /bin/ksh).
And Linuxes (/bin/sh == /bin/bash).)
| It is very easy for people to start using ksh93 without even knowing
| about it. Recently I had to deal with a migration from suse to
| ubuntu where in suse /bin/sh == bash and in ubuntu where /bin/sh ==
| dash. It was not pretty and even trivial things broke like 'if [
| "$FOO" == "bar" ]' vs. 'if [ "$FOO" = "bar" ]'.
| Now, if you don't care about portability, that is not an issue.
#! /usr/bin/env bash
#! /usr/bin/env ksh93
actually is the way to portability (subject to the availability of
Bash and Ksh93).
are not, having in mind what they are on various systems and the
impossibility, for a sane person, to touch those /bin/*sh files.
-- Alex -- alex-goncharov%comcast.net@localhost --
Main Index |
Thread Index |