[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposed new POSIX sh policy, version two

On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 21:08 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> You can use whatever bashisms you like when you're working
> interactively, that won't hinder dash from executing shells on boot and
> elsewhere.  Using bashisms in scripts does however cause a problem.

I think it's time to realize that "bash" specifies a programming
language, and so does "dash".

Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not
instead ask maintainers to do #!/bin/dash?

> Oh, and there *are* other suitable interactive shells than bash.  tcsh,
> ksh, zsh, rc...  Whether any of these actually consume less memory than
> bash, I cannot say, since I'm a bash user myself on the desktop.  Yet
> all the scripts I write run perfectly well (and faster) in dash.

I said that dash was not a substitute for bash, by its own claim.  This
is like a game of whackamole.  If the claim is made that dash involves
less disk space or memory use, it's nearly irrelevant, because bash will
be there anyway.

There may well be advantages to dash for this or that application.  So
then, maintainers should be encouraged to use it.  The best way, of
course, is #!/bin/dash.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: