metro

[grarpamp]

On 8/2/16, John <jnn at synfin.org> wrote:
> In the days of Linux and /bin/sh being a link to bash

Would be worse if link was to csh (freebsd curiously use csh
but only as default interactive root shell). Both defaults indoctrinate
users poorly, at least for forming noninteractive work.

> who needs posix sh(1) compatibility ..?
>
> BSDs still have an actual Bourne shell without all the bashisms (it's picked
> up a couple but mainly just better keyboard handling).

For people serious about shell, cross system, unix, work
they likely encounter, and why things are... at least a quick
one time through the likes of these is in order...

http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/ash/
https://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/anthony/info/shell/csh.whynot-1.7.txt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_command_shells
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/sh.html
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/test.html

Being Bourne based, Bash isn't a bad interactive choice, so
long as stuff people ship is some reasonable least common
of ash / posix / bsd. You start putting associative arrays and
brace expansion in that shit and some real SA is going well
beyond postal on your ass.