[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/11]
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:40:28 -0600, Peter da Silva <peter@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> On Dec 11, 2006, at 1:32 AM, H.Merijn Brand wrote:
> > Once you are hitting these shell bounds, you are likely (or even
> > should)
> > switch to a language that *is* portable: python, perl
>
> I would personally rather write in Version 6 shell than Python or Perl,
> particularly Perl... which has almost all the flaws of any UNIX shell
> and few if any of its advantages...
strange and funny that besides the obvious differences, now also perception
is forwarded as reasons (not) to use a shell :)
In *my* perception and experience, you've got the two words swapped:
Perl has all the advantages of any Unix tool (sh, csh, awk, sed, sort, ...)
but lacks any of their shortcomings and flaws. But I might be biased.
> but I get your point for programs where dataflow isn't the dominant
> theme. Unfortunately, there's few languages better than the shell and
> anywhere near as widely available that does as good a job as the UNIX
> pipeline/filter approach.
correct. Which rules out windows for being usable at all.
--
H.Merijn Brand Amsterdam Perl Mongers (http://amsterdam.pm.org/)
using & porting perl 5.6.2, 5.8.x, 5.9.x on HP-UX 10.20, 11.00, 11.11,
& 11.23, SuSE 10.0 & 10.1, AIX 4.3 & 5.2, and Cygwin. http://qa.perl.org
http://mirrors.develooper.com/hpux/ http://www.test-smoke.org
http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
There's stuff above here
Generated at 22:02 on 27 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52