On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 05:57:05PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: } On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:48:47 +0300 } Aryan Ameri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: } > If the intended users of the script are likely to use different Unix } > versions, then sh scripting is probably the safe bet. On the other } > hand, if you are counting on them, running your script on Windows or } > traditional Macintosh, then perl is a safer bet. } } This is not the first time I've seen this said and I am curious where, } exactly, an sh script would be more portable than a perl script?
On any system where only licensed commercial executables are allowed to be installed. Believe it or not, there are systems out there which have *no* non-commercial software on them, including perl, GNU utilities, Apache, etc. Usually this is a management decision rather than a technical one, but that is irrelevant. If you have to write a script (e.g. an installer for a commercial product, which might be installed on such a system) which has to work on such a system, it better be POSIX-pure /bin/sh. } Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your --Greg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
