> The issue raised on Go-Nuts is that Bash shouldn't be used for > installing Go, /bin/sh should be used instead. The response is that > Bash is the most uniformly implemented of the /bin/sh's out there and > that none of the other shells (generally referred to as /bin/sh) can > be relied upon not to have incompatible foibles that would trip up a > complicated script headed #!/bin/sh. Therefore, intentionally using > #!/bin/bash (or #!/usr/bin/env -c /bin/bash - from memory) is much > more likely to work without adjustments. > > Hence, it makes sense to stick to bash in one's day-to-day work. > > Of course, rc would be preferable, but the target platforms for Go are > not all adequately endowed, and Byron's rc proves the point: it is > slightly incompatible with Plan 9's rc.
i think there's an unexplained twist in the logic. byron's rc is a non sequitor. rc (the real one from p9p) could be made to run on all the go platforms, and would be uniform across them all. one suspects therefore that the reason is either that rc doesn't run on all the platforms, or that the go team thinks rc is not preferrable. for example it could be that the thought is that rc might distract from the real point here, go. i don't know. but the problem isn't the consistency of rc. byron's rc doesn't count. that's like saying the bourne shell is not consistent because of bash. - erik
