pwd_mkdb

3 ms·

1.
by pwd_mkdb 10y ago
i try to write my scripts in such a way that if all newlines were lost, the script would still run. semicolons even where optional. requiring the use of bash for non-interactive use? good grief. is it possible this company has a linux bia
2.
by pwd_mkdb 10y ago
nope. reminds me of comments where someone is purporting to be able to assess the quality of software based only on looking to see when the last changes to the source code were made.
3.
by pwd_mkdb 10y ago
my personal belief is that anything one can do in bash i can do in sh. not sure if that's really true in practice, but that's my belief. i never use bashisms because i do not know what they are or how to use them.
4.
by pwd_mkdb 10y ago
concision gets me less code to read. that's how i define "readability". but if forum commments are any indication, i know my preferences do not follow the norm. most programmers seems to prefer verbosity. however in my case
5.
by pwd_mkdb 10y ago
i agree with your comment. limitation is what gives rise to creativity. however, consider that one can impose their own limitations. i can restrict myself to a subset of assembly, or c. i would guess that even with today's popular v
6.
by pwd_mkdb 10y ago
that quote from the economist on the pinboard site is great. cheers.
7.
by pwd_mkdb 10y ago
solution without using sed, grep and eval (yikes!); does this suffice? i probably missed something obvious; run with ./ case ${1-start} in start) # your script goes here... x=100 $0 foo ;; mid) echo &qu