NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/comp/unix/shell/3728

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-02 | 1.7 KB

Xref: sparky comp.unix.shell:3728 comp.unix.questions:10600
Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.questions
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!navarra
From: [e-mail] (John Navarra)
Subject: Re: Shell Scripts vs. C programs
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Keywords: shell script, C
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet on news.acns)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 08:54:12 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Nathan Urban) writes:
>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.
>
>
    And vice versa. But which is easier to write? And, suppose you
had to add capabilities to your program which DID involve 'OS quirks'.
Would you rather be responsible for making sure your C program compiled
on all machines or would you rather just update your shell script? In
general, shell scripts are much easier to write and maintain. Unless
there is some profuse lack of speed, shell scripts are very very useful.
But then again, there is always the perl alternative....

-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 [e-mail]========