| 15:10 |
gregorynyssa |
asciilifeform: given that you spend not inconsiderable time upon Linux, which shell do you prefer? |
| 15:11 |
gregorynyssa |
does csh(1) aka. tcsh(1) have any merit, in your opinion? |
| 15:17 |
asciilifeform |
gregorynyssa: asciilifeform to this day uses bash |
| 15:18 |
asciilifeform |
( which sadly not in fact standard at all fwiw ) |
| 15:18 |
dulapbot |
Logged on 2022-04-11 22:08:25 asciilifeform: ( not to mention, ~errybody's 'sh' is actually bash-only ) |
| |
~ 18 minutes ~ |
| 15:37 |
gregorynyssa |
asciilifeform: if I understand correctly from that thread, you are saying that the POSIX standard for shells is too crippled |
| 15:37 |
gregorynyssa |
that it cannot be used to write non-trivial shell-scripts, is that right? |
| 15:41 |
gregorynyssa |
I am not comfortable with the fourth-generation shells: bash(1), zsh(1), KSH93. |
| 15:45 |
gregorynyssa |
I like the Slackware fork of dash(1) but it has some errors, including in the latest release, 15.0. |
| |
↖ |
| 15:48 |
gregorynyssa |
http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-04-11#1095353 << line-at-a-time execution is a different genre from modular programming. |
| 15:48 |
dulapbot |
Logged on 2022-04-11 22:09:05 asciilifeform: sh, perlism, pythonism, 'must die'(tm) imho. |
| 15:49 |
gregorynyssa |
thus it makes sense for a shell-language and a programming language to coexist. |
| 15:51 |
gregorynyssa |
even on a system of exemplary design. |
| 15:52 |
gregorynyssa |
I would even admit a tripartite distinction: shell-language, "tractate" language (such as awk(1) or Tcl, but with clean semantics), and modular language. |