Re: bash vs. python scripts - which one is better?
On 2007-08-07 15:14:42 -0700, David Brodbeck wrote:
> On Aug 7, 2007, at 2:39 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>> - Every Unix-like system you encounter will have some version of the
>>> Bourne
>>> shell. Not every system will have Python.
>>
>> Not every system has bash.
>
> Well, yeah. That's why I said "Bourne shell" and not "bash."
But you said "learning bash scripting" just before that. And bash
is not really a Bourne shell anyway, since it is incompatible with
the traditional Bourne shell (in particular concerning the signal
handling). So, one has two kinds of Bourne-like ("sh") shells:
the traditional Bourne shell and POSIX shells. This makes writing
portable sh scripts very difficult.
>> I now write all my portable scripts in Perl since it
>> is on every system I've met.
>
> It's not any more guaranteed than bash, though. For example, FreeBSD
> no longer includes Perl with the base system; you have to install it
> as a port.
One can hope that every sensible admin would install it.
> Personally I think filenames with spaces in them are an abomination that
> should have never been permitted, but I lost that argument ages ago. ;)
I agree. This can even make confusion when mentioning filenames in
text files (not just in scripts...). Non-ASCII characters should also
be avoided (because of Unicode's NFC/NFD forms, but also homoglyphs).
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
Reply to: