3 ms·

Yes it does. Sorry, I'm not supporting some ancient buggy AIX thing. People tying their shell scripts into knots using hacks like this are just doing performati

Yes it does. Sorry, I'm not supporting some ancient buggy AIX thing. People tying their shell scripts into knots using hacks like this are just doing performative compatibility nonsense. It hasn't mattered in the real world in a decade.

naniwaduni 4y ago
Also, this is hardly going to be the deal-breaker for running your software on such systems unless you're expressly writing for them. Pre-standard systems are exotic in ways that are going to break whatever you're trying to do in way more exciting ways!
JohnFen 4y ago
> It hasn't mattered in the real world in a decade. This is not true at all. There are plenty of such systems, run by major companies, in daily use. It isn't the most common case, but it certainly matters in important parts of the real world.
- freedomben 4y ago
  Are we talking about a real example here? I'm very sympathetic to backwards compatibility, to the point I still write sh compatible scripts unless I have a real need for `[[ ~= ]]`, but of the thousands of scripts I've written in the last 10 years, none of them would have any use outside of a modern distro. Adding the x-hack to every comparison seems utterly insane to me, exactly as GP said. But like I said, I'm sympathetic, so I'd love to hear a case for why I should do it anyway
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    In my last position, I had to write new (and maintain old) shell scripts for these systems all the time, for Fortune 500 companies. Upgrading those systems was not in the realm of possibility for various reasons. Because our product has to run on a wide variety of hardware, it was essential to maintain compatibility both for the crufty old shell implementations and the shiny new -- so best practice there was to develop the habit of writing shell code that could run across the eons, including the x-hack. Multimillion dollar contracts depended on it. If your situation isn't like that, then I understand why this is a nonissue. But there are plenty of situations where such backward compatibility is essential. Not the most common thing, perhaps, but not as rare as some think. I do think there is a tendency amongst some programmers to think that everyone is running stuff that is at least moderately modern. In the real world, this is simply not true.
    - freedomben 4y ago
      would it be fair to summarize your position then as: "It probably doesn't matter, but you will build habits and at some point you may wish you already had the habit in place" ? If so, that's a reasonable point, thank you
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        Yes, I think that's a fair statement. I've developed many habits over the decades that, most of the time, don't really matter. But when they do, they matter a lot and I'm very glad I had them.

naniwaduni 4y ago

Also, this is hardly going to be the deal-breaker for running your software on such systems unless you're expressly writing for them. Pre-standard systems are exotic in ways that are going to break whatever you're trying to do in way more exciting ways!

JohnFen 4y ago

> It hasn't mattered in the real world in a decade. This is not true at all. There are plenty of such systems, run by major companies, in daily use. It isn't the most common case, but it certainly matters in important parts of the real world.

freedomben 4y ago
Are we talking about a real example here? I'm very sympathetic to backwards compatibility, to the point I still write sh compatible scripts unless I have a real need for `[[ ~= ]]`, but of the thousands of scripts I've written in the last 10 years, none of them would have any use outside of a modern distro. Adding the x-hack to every comparison seems utterly insane to me, exactly as GP said. But like I said, I'm sympathetic, so I'd love to hear a case for why I should do it anyway
- JohnFen 4y ago
  In my last position, I had to write new (and maintain old) shell scripts for these systems all the time, for Fortune 500 companies. Upgrading those systems was not in the realm of possibility for various reasons. Because our product has to run on a wide variety of hardware, it was essential to maintain compatibility both for the crufty old shell implementations and the shiny new -- so best practice there was to develop the habit of writing shell code that could run across the eons, including the x-hack. Multimillion dollar contracts depended on it. If your situation isn't like that, then I understand why this is a nonissue. But there are plenty of situations where such backward compatibility is essential. Not the most common thing, perhaps, but not as rare as some think. I do think there is a tendency amongst some programmers to think that everyone is running stuff that is at least moderately modern. In the real world, this is simply not true.
  - freedomben 4y ago
    would it be fair to summarize your position then as: "It probably doesn't matter, but you will build habits and at some point you may wish you already had the habit in place" ? If so, that's a reasonable point, thank you
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      Yes, I think that's a fair statement. I've developed many habits over the decades that, most of the time, don't really matter. But when they do, they matter a lot and I'm very glad I had them.