home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.unix.shell:3723 comp.unix.questions:10592
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!usc!news
- From: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.questions
- Subject: Re: Shell Scripts vs. C programs
- Keywords: shell script, C
- Message-ID: <la5rr9INNac3@almaak.usc.edu>
- Date: 1 Sep 92 04:19:53 GMT
- References: <1992Aug31.211738.1909@tjhsst.vak12ed.edu> <119@steiny.com>
- Sender: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
- Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
- Lines: 26
- NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu
-
- steiny@steiny.com (Don Steiny) writes:
-
- > BZZZ - shell scripts are non-portable, there is no error checking,
- >and they have many other problems. For very short programs shell
-
- /bin/sh is highly portable, as are bash extensions (because bash
- compiles on anything).
-
- The error checking by the script can be almost as good as you want it
- to be. If what you mean is: the "compiler" does little checking, yes,
- that is the case. Experience has shown that little interpreted
- languages like awk are actually more useful when you don't have the
- baggage of declaration etc.
-
- 1% of the possible flags of /bin programs account for 99% of
- the usage, therefore even though all the flags of ls are not
- standardised, you are in great shape using a few of them.
-
- And Yes, I think shell scripts are intensively used in one-use or in
- situations where you won't need the script a few weeks hence. Most
- scripts _I_ write are written interactively on the commandline :-)
- (Okay, I admit to serious help from bash and command_oriented_history).
-
- -ans.
- --
- Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu
-