3 ms·
Those defines remind me of how Bourne shell was originally written using such a system to make the source look more like Algol 68. It might even still be mainta
by agentultra 7y ago
Those defines remind me of how Bourne shell was originally written using such a system to make the source look more like Algol 68. It might even still be maintained that way in BSD to this day [0].
[0] https://books.google.ca/books?id=9f9uAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=expert+c+programming+bourne+shell&source=bl&ots=UJafm8jP8B&sig=ACfU3U1Nb-leW-01XLRyLB6xsKOBrJf3hw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_6dDe0KvnAhVuRN8KHQDTBgUQ6AEwAHoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=expert%20c%20programming%20bourne%20shell&f=false https://books.google.ca/books?id=9f9uAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9...
- mst 7y agoYes! Has anybody written a head-to-head article pitting CNoEvil against BOURNEGOL yet? ISAGN
- JdeBP 7y ago"to this day" in 1994 is very much not "to this day" in 2020. The various BSDs use the Almquist and Korn shells for /bin/sh nowadays. Indeed, M. Van der Linden was out of date even back in 1994. At that time, BSD had already been largely freed of AT&T code, such as the Bourne shell, for 3 years. It's now approaching 3 decades.
- agentultra 7y agoI've forgotten how old that book is. Geez time flies. Thanks for the clarification!