Re: ash vs. bash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 19:09:48 -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>(1) it's easier to learn a language that you can use interactively than
>one that only works in some "file at a time" mode.
This is an opinion. I simply counter with mine. I find that one that
goes through a file is easier to learn than one that does not. My experience
with perl (which I know) versus sh/ash/tcsh/bash/zsh (which I do not know) as
well as MUSH coding on a MUSH versus MUSH coding in a file and preprocessing
into something usable.
IE, just because something is interactive doesn't mean it is easier to
learn.
>(2) it's often convenient to write a short script at the command line to
>accomplish some one-off task. [If I'm doing a task a lot, I'll gradually
>accrete a set of tools dedicated to that task. Early on they're purely
>interactive commands, then short aliases and maybe small scripts, and
>once I've formalized the work I might write a dedicated program or set
>of programs for the task.]
Again, an opinion. I really see no difference than writing a quick thing
at the prompt versus writing a quick script. Well, I do. when I screw up on
the prompt I have to really look to see what the problem is, maybe even
retyping large portions because of a lack of decent editing.
- --
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
- -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.0 (C) 1997 Pretty Good Privacy, Inc
iQA/AwUBN5Zl+Hpf7K2LbpnFEQJGeACffYTuad5+MJVhbxm3dar7XxLprSMAoKRk
ICpKOjbcFKDQUKSKFgc0Pt7J
=lwWe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: