home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.unix.shell:3776 comp.unix.questions:10655
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!axion!spuddy!sweh
- From: sweh@spuddy.uucp (Stephen Harris)
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.questions
- Subject: Re: Shell Scripts vs. C programs
- Keywords: shell script, C
- Message-ID: <1992Sep1.222041.1491@spuddy.uucp>
- Date: 1 Sep 92 22:20:41 GMT
- References: <1992Aug31.211738.1909@tjhsst.vak12ed.edu> <119@steiny.com>
- Organization: Spuddy's Public Usenet Domain
- Lines: 28
-
- In article <119@steiny.com> 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
- >might be better, but in general C is better for many reasons.
-
- Of course! Thats why the 1000+ lines of ksh script I have written and is
- running on three different systems (SunOs4.1.1, Convergent S/80 Ctix, Altos
- 3068 SVR2.2) and used to run under Ultrix 4.1 was so hard to get working....
- NOT!
-
- And it is so easy to modify, enhance, understand!
- And this program has been running now for over 1 year....
-
- In fact ksh is now my primary programming "language" - I keep kicking myself
- when my occaisioanl C program has comment lines beginning with a # :-)
-
- Yes, there *are* times where ksh is not suitable for everything, but a main
- ksh program with a couple of special C utilities solve 99% of my problems.
-
- With something as powerful as ksh, all you need is the shell, and your programs
- will run virtually anywhere.
-
- Sounds like some arguments I've heard for perl...:-)
- --
- Stephen Harris
- sweh@spuddy.uucp ...!uknet!axion!spuddy!sweh
-
- * Meeeeow ! Call Spud the Cat on > +44 203 638780 < for free Usenet access *
-