4 ms·
1. From UNIX point-of-view, not all has the luxury of bash, so seems to be quite limited to a certain modern platform? I found out ksh are more prevalent 2. I
by unexistance 12y ago
1. From UNIX point-of-view, not all has the luxury of bash, so seems to be quite limited to a certain modern platform? I found out ksh are more prevalent
2. I actually use UnxUtils in windows so I can has POSIX command option (and scripting). Performance-wise, never tested as not needed, all short command / simple script
- michaelcampbell 12y agoWhat systems do you work on where bash isn't around, but ksh is? If you're referring to Linux as "certain modern platform", I was using bash on Solaris 1.x 20+ years ago. (Granted, back then I had to compile it myself which may not be an option for many.)
- TallGuyShort 12y agoUsing Fedora 20, `which ksh` returns nothing. I would think people wanting to adopt a language like this are more likely to be using Linux 2.6 than AT&T UNIX, but I would suspect you're wrong about which one is now more prevalent now anyway. I can't remember the last time I used a *nix box that didn't have bash (or a VERY similar shell) installed by default, and this is certainly a huge step up over having to write both batch and bash independently anyway.