[»]
Re: When to use this rather than bash?
by Walles - Jun 17th 2005 05:58:38
This is explained on the project web page.
No, it's not.
According to Google, bash is mentioned only once at heirloom.sf.net, in a
changelog entry that doesn't explain when Heirloom is preferrable to
bash.
The bulleted list at the front page says basically:
* Heirloom can be used for script portability testing. This could
potentially be an answer to my question, although if you really
want your script to work on a certain kind of shell, you'd have to test it
there anyway. Half a point.
* "Processing of legacy scripts" without any evidence that bash couldn't
do this as well. Zero points.
* The shell scripting language lacks a lot of features. This is a
feature!? Minus one point. If people doesn't want to use bash features,
they can still use bash instead of Heirloom.
* The shell lacks command line editing features. This is a feature!?
Minus yet another point. If people doesn't want to use bash features,
they can still use bash instead of Heirloom.
Also, I give you minus half one more point for not mentioning bash. That
sums up to minus two points for that explanation.
I still don't understand why anybody would prefer this to bash, as bash is
a superset of Heirloom AFAICT.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: When to use this rather than bash?
by Gunnar Ritter - Jun 17th 2005 06:29:33
>> This is explained on the project web
>> page.
>
> No, it's not.
Just get a clue of the subject you are talking about.
There are enough texts that explain incompatibilities
between the Bourne shell and newer shells, to start
with; Google perhaps helps you to find them if you do
not want to follow the link at the bottom of the home
page.
> I still don't understand
Nobody forces you to use this project. Simply suppose
that it is for experts only.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: When to use this rather than bash?
by Walles - Jun 17th 2005 07:04:00
There are enough texts that explain
incompatibilities
between the Bourne shell and newer
shells, to start
with; Google perhaps helps you to find
them if you do
not want to follow the link at the
bottom of the home
page.
You mean the one that
"doesn't deal with [...] bash"?
Simply suppose
that it is for experts only.
I will. I'd better stay away from it then. Have fun with your project.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: When to use this rather than bash?
by Gunnar Ritter - Jun 17th 2005 07:10:24
> You mean the one that "doesn't deal with
> [...] bash"?
It sometimes makes sense to read more than the
first sentence of a complex document.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: When to use this rather than bash?
by Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik - Aug 16th 2006 08:36:01
That was a sad exchange...
There are MANY MANY reasons NOT to use bash. I'll count the 2 most common
which are ussualy important for stuff like init scripts and others. The
question here is not why use it instead of bash but why use it instead of
any other posix sh :)
a) low resource usage
b) speed
[reply]
[top]
