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

Re: how execute a script

On Mon 16 Nov 2015 at 06:54:40 (+0100), Martin Str|mberg wrote:
> In article <qvjTP-2Cs-1@gated-at.bofh.it> David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
> > As for script-file extensions in DOS, there was really only .BAT
> > wasn't there?, so the idea of distinguishing .bash, .csh, .py, .pl,
> > .sh, .zsh etc as being inherited from DOS is difficult for me to
> > understand.
> Perhaps it's because (MS)DOS begat WINDOWS that only knew how to run
> something based on the extension?
> And that is why we shudder on the sight of a (unnecessary?) extension?

I wouldn't know. My experience of windows is far less than DOS, and my
use of DOS was pretty much restricted to an AUTOEXEC.BAT that started
an emulation system which was my area of expertise. Interesting choice
of language, though; shudder.

I'm the person questioning the relevance of DOS to putting ".sh" at
the end of an on-PATH executable script's filename, when DOS was
brought up in https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/11/msg00453.html

I take it there's a whole generation of folk who gained their
experience of filename endings (a less loaded word than extension)
through DOS/windows, perhaps entirely so. With it, they picked up a
load of negative associations, causing shuddering here and unhappiness
in another part of this thread.

I'm sorry for you. I didn't touch DOS until 1992-06-01 (to be precise)
about twentyone years into my computing career. To say I *used* it
would be an overstatement: I ran one package on it.

Putting meaningful endings onto filenames (excepting, I hasten to
add lest people jump down my throat, executable scripts) had been a
way of life for years. Their necessity was variable from system to
system; sometimes they were just a convention. Look at   man gcc.
It has meaningful endings. They've been there since at least
15 March 1972 when, allegedly, the number of Unix installations had
grown to 10. (At that time, gcc was obviously called cc; Stallman
hadn't yet graduated.)

As for unix scripts, well, yes, there's no *need* for any endings,
but that doesn't preclude their use. If that makes you unhappy or
into a shudderer, please get over it.


Reply to: