Comments for Heirloom Bourne Shell

16 Aug 2006 08:36 LordFalcon

Re: When to use this rather than bash?
That was a sad exchange...

There are MANY MANY reasons NOT to use bash. I'll count the 2 most common which are ussualy important for stuff like init scripts and others. The question here is not why use it instead of bash but why use it instead of any other posix sh :)

a) low resource usage
b) speed

17 Jun 2005 07:10 gritter

Re: When to use this rather than bash?


> You mean the one that "doesn't deal with

> [...] bash"?

It sometimes makes sense to read more than the

first sentence of a complex document.

17 Jun 2005 07:04 walles

Re: When to use this rather than bash?

There are enough texts that explain
incompatibilities
between the Bourne shell and newer
shells, to start
with; Google perhaps helps you to find
them if you do
not want to follow the link at the
bottom of the home
page.

You mean the one that "doesn't deal with [...] bash" (http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/bourne/)?

Simply suppose
that it is for experts only.

I will. I'd better stay away from it then. Have fun with your project.

17 Jun 2005 06:29 gritter

Re: When to use this rather than bash?


%> This is explained on the project web

%> page.

>

> No, it's not.

Just get a clue of the subject you are talking about.

There are enough texts that explain incompatibilities

between the Bourne shell and newer shells, to start

with; Google perhaps helps you to find them if you do

not want to follow the link at the bottom of the home

page.

> I still don't understand

Nobody forces you to use this project. Simply suppose

that it is for experts only.

17 Jun 2005 05:58 walles

Re: When to use this rather than bash?
This is explained on the project web page.


No, it's not.


According to Google, bash is mentioned only once at heirloom.sf.net, in a changelog entry that doesn't explain when Heirloom is preferrable to bash.


The bulleted list at the front page says basically:


* Heirloom can be used for script portability testing. This could potentially be an answer to my question, although if you really want your script to work on a certain kind of shell, you'd have to test it there anyway. Half a point.

* "Processing of legacy scripts" without any evidence that bash couldn't do this as well. Zero points.

* The shell scripting language lacks a lot of features. This is a feature!? Minus one point. If people doesn't want to use bash features, they can still use bash instead of Heirloom.

* The shell lacks command line editing features. This is a feature!? Minus yet another point. If people doesn't want to use bash features, they can still use bash instead of Heirloom.

Also, I give you minus half one more point for not mentioning bash. That sums up to minus two points for that explanation.


I still don't understand why anybody would prefer this to bash, as bash is a superset of Heirloom AFAICT.

17 Jun 2005 05:33 gritter

Re: When to use this rather than bash?


> What's the use case where somebody would

> prefer this to bash?

This is explained on the project web page.

> To the

> un-trained eye this could seem to be yet

> another me-too project that are so

> popular here at Freshmeat...

http://freshmeat.net/~gritter/ (http://freshmeat.net/~gritter/)

I guess I had no need for a me-too project.

17 Jun 2005 05:19 walles

When to use this rather than bash?
What's the use case where somebody would prefer this to bash (http://freshmeat.net/projects/gnubash/)?


Bash is everywhere, this project isn't AFAIK. Why make another sh clone with less features than bash? To the un-trained eye this could seem to be yet another me-too project that are so popular here at Freshmeat...


Please don't be offended, I really want to know.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

ReciJournal

An open, cross-platform journaling program.

Screenshot

Project Spotlight

Veusz

A scientific plotting package.