home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.unix.shell:3726 comp.unix.questions:10598
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.questions
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!vdoe386!tjhsst!nurban
- From: nurban@tjhsst.vak12ed.edu (Nathan Urban)
- Subject: Re: Shell Scripts vs. C programs
- Message-ID: <1992Sep01.062906.8332@tjhsst.vak12ed.edu>
- Summary: is C so non-portable?
- Keywords: shell script, C
- Organization: Virginia's Public Education Network (Fairfax)
- References: <1992Aug31.211738.1909@tjhsst.vak12ed.edu> <119@steiny.com> <1992Sep1.044434.7193@news.acns.nwu.edu>
- Date: Tue, 01 Sep 92 06:29:06 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <1992Sep1.044434.7193@news.acns.nwu.edu> navarra@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (John Navarra) writes:
-
- >For one, most [ba|k|z]sh scripts will run in sh and vice versa. And, if you
- >need to, you can always get shell X and compile it on your machine. This is
- >*usually* easier than rewriting C-code to accomodate your OS.
-
- ...
-
- > And translating your C code using compiler X to OS Y is any
- >easier? Perhaps you are thinking of Csh? Then, yeah, you suck.
-
- >-tms
- >--
- >You can get further with a kind word | You can get further with a kind word
- >and a gun than a kind word alone. | and a phaser than a kind word and a gun.
- > --al capone | -- John Navarra
- >=======From the Lab of the MaD ScIenTIst....navarra@casbah.acns.nwu.edu========
-
-
- It seems to me that most tasks that you would write a shell script for
- could be implemented in very portable C without worrying too much about
- OS quirks if one so desired.
-
-
- --
- -------------------------------------------------------
- Nathan Urban nurban@tjhsst.vak12ed.edu
- Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology
- -------------------------------------------------------
-