3 ms·

Coding standards will only get you so far. The bigger issue in my mind is the risk of having such a powerful shell at the core of arbitrary software stacks. W

Coding standards will only get you so far. The bigger issue in my mind is the risk of having such a powerful shell at the core of arbitrary software stacks. What I hope comes out of this is that Linux distributions standardize on a bare-bones shell for system-level and even application-level scripts, and more powerful shells are used only for interactive sessions.

hadoukenio 12y ago
> What I hope comes out of this is that Linux distributions standardize on a bare-bones shell for system-level and even application-level scripts, and more powerful shells are used only for interactive sessions. It's called POSIX, aka ISO/IEC 9945: http://www.unix.org/version3/iso_std.html
- dasil003 12y ago
  Yes, smart guy. I mean in practice.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
super_mario 12y ago
But POSIX shell sh which is part of UNIX standard is not that much less powerful (it's really not that much different than BASH). So you would have to get UNIX group to break backward compatibility (of 40 years) and downgrade the shell to something less powerful. But why? We have had UNIX shells since 1972 and they work and work well for what they were designed. Also, the criticism of code style is unfounded. It was written ages ago to the standards of the day, tested to work and left alone as it should have (it works, works well and why touch it?). It may look strange to the people who have only started programming in the last couple of years and who would happily re-write every peace of working code to conform to their idea of coding standards and how things should be done.
Anthony-G 12y ago
Debian’s Almquist Shell seems like a step in the right direction. While having more features than the `system()` call might need, it’s a more pare-downed shell that retains POSIX compatibility.

3 ms·

Coding standards will only get you so far. The bigger issue in my mind is the risk of having such a powerful shell at the core of arbitrary software stacks. W

by dasil003 12y ago

hadoukenio 12y ago
> What I hope comes out of this is that Linux distributions standardize on a bare-bones shell for system-level and even application-level scripts, and more powerful shells are used only for interactive sessions. It's called POSIX, aka ISO/IEC 9945: http://www.unix.org/version3/iso_std.html
- dasil003 12y ago
  Yes, smart guy. I mean in practice.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
super_mario 12y ago
But POSIX shell sh which is part of UNIX standard is not that much less powerful (it's really not that much different than BASH). So you would have to get UNIX group to break backward compatibility (of 40 years) and downgrade the shell to something less powerful. But why? We have had UNIX shells since 1972 and they work and work well for what they were designed. Also, the criticism of code style is unfounded. It was written ages ago to the standards of the day, tested to work and left alone as it should have (it works, works well and why touch it?). It may look strange to the people who have only started programming in the last couple of years and who would happily re-write every peace of working code to conform to their idea of coding standards and how things should be done.
Anthony-G 12y ago
Debian’s Almquist Shell seems like a step in the right direction. While having more features than the `system()` call might need, it’s a more pare-downed shell that retains POSIX compatibility.