2 ms·
> It deserves to be distinguished from Bash, without question. Absolutely, and I agree with your sentiment at a broad level -- although I think the book notes
by mustache_kimono 4y ago
> It deserves to be distinguished from Bash, without question.
Absolutely, and I agree with your sentiment at a broad level -- although I think the book notes who the book is for, and that `bash` and `sh` are distinct, it doesn't explain the why of maybe considering `sh` for other uses which aren't really the focus of the book, and perhaps it should?
> Due to this lineage of the POSIX shell, it is very friendly for embedded systems and other constrained environments
I'm wondering if this will matter as much in the future. Are people really going to be programming 16 bit microcontrollers when a 32 bit parts are becoming so cheap? How constrained are we really going to be?
- chasil 4y agoHere is my copy of Busybox for Windows: C:\Users\chasil>busybox bash ~ $ a[1]=1 bash: a[1]=1: not found ~ $ Despite what Busybox claims, that is very much not Bash. That is Almquist, with a few added bashisms. I was in a clothing store a few months ago, and their credit card readers had crashed. They were showing the Busybox copyright notice.
- anthk 4y agoa[1]=1 $ echo $SHELL /bin/ksh This is mksh from MirBSD under Hyperbola Linux.