5 ms·
I cherry-picked the good parts because that's what it was built for. Obviously, misusing it is going to give you a terrible experience, you never answered my q
by leif 16y ago
I cherry-picked the good parts because that's what it was built for. Obviously, misusing it is going to give you a terrible experience, you never answered my question about using another programming language in place of an interactive shell.
Ruby, Python and Perl have even stranger variable behavior (esp. re: scope) and their own mess of ugly sigils (all with entirely different semantics), so I don't know why you're picking on sh variables. True, each different shell has its own intricacies (particularly when you get to arrays), but this matters next to never, when you look across uses of the shell.
- nwmcsween 16y agoOk so sh is good for small one-off scripts, fair enough. But why? Why shouldn't a sh language be good? Why can't I interface with other programs (that have bindings) natively in an sh? Why is it considered a good thing to make it a complete pain to do anything non-trivial with sh? As for the argument of keeping memory usage low that's a bunch of crap vm's are usually comparable or lower.