3 ms·
> bash since it is the most common one. Im pretty sure you meant to say "POSIX, because its rules are supported by multiple shells, and you can't depend on bas
by stephenr 9y ago
> bash since it is the most common one.
Im pretty sure you meant to say "POSIX, because its rules are supported by multiple shells, and you can't depend on bash being available or a recent version on some systems".
- effie 9y agoActually, I meant bash, that is, if one works solely with Linux systems. Bash has some very useful features and is the default on common Linux systems. Those are not POSIX. It was frozen in time long ago and is very limiting, do not wear that straightjacket if you do not have to. For commercial unices or bsd's bash could be hard to use and using POSIX shell may make more sense.
- stephenr 9y agoFrom my experience, the extras Bash give you are likely to be bigger hints that it is time to move to a more appropriate language. I'm definitely pro on shell scripts, but I'm also willing to use a different language when posix SH isn't going to cut it.
- ams6110 9y agoAny unix system will have sh(1). Not all have bash. Not all have python. More probably have perl than python, so if you want something other than sh, then perl should probably be it.
- stephenr 9y agoI'm aware of that. When I said POSIX, I was referring to a POSIX-compatible sh implementation.