| |||||||||||||
Evolution of shells in Linux (developerWorks)Evolution of shells in Linux (developerWorks)Posted Dec 9, 2011 12:32 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)In reply to: Evolution of shells in Linux (developerWorks) by mpr22 Parent article: Evolution of shells in Linux (developerWorks)
The question is what consequences to draw from it. And the answer is obvious: solve the problem some other way so that the best practice isn't needed any longer. What this boils down to is that shell programming should be avoided wherever possible.
(Log in to post comments)
Evolution of shells in Linux (developerWorks) Posted Dec 9, 2011 13:06 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
by that logic, no languange should ever be used for programming
people keep trying to produce things that can be extended to do things that weren't initially programmed in via config files of various kinds, but evenutally every one of these config files grows into (or adopts) some sort of programming language.
Evolution of shells in Linux (developerWorks) Posted Dec 9, 2011 13:23 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
> by that logic, no languange should ever be used for programming
Well, this is not a binary thing. The thing is that in order to write reliable shell scripts, you need to jump through hoops *all the time* (i. e. every time you use a glob, every time you use sed in a locale other than the one you have tested your script with etc.) in order to stop bad things from happening.
|
|||||||||||||