Re: ash vs. bash
Steve Lamb <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
I'd consider perl to be interactive (at least: I use it interactively),
and I'd definitely consider MUSH to be interactive -- though maybe
if you tend to create multi-line routines you'd think of it as batch.
> 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.
Hmm.. with bash you can easily edit a quick thing at the prompt.
If you're using the vi editting keys, you can even bop into command
mode (which you've already done if you're recalling a line) and hit
v and edit your line using your editor (perhaps vi), then write it
out as a script.
In this context, what is the difference between a script and
something interactive? The name of the file you're editting?