Thanks for all. May I ask further, which is the best (systematic) way of learning the script, based on all your experience.
Welcome any advice, Thanks with regards, lina On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:54 PM, shawn wilson <ag4ve...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 2011 4:28 AM, "Ivan Shmakov" <i...@gray.siamics.net> wrote: >> >> >>>>> shawn wilson <ag4ve...@gmail.com> writes: > >> > However, I'd look at some of the bio perl modules if this was the >> > type of data I was looking at. Either way, learning dozens of tools >> > to manipulate lots of data is quite time consuming, prone to failure, >> > and quite frankly senseless. >> >> How it's different to learning dozens of functions documented in >> perlfunc(3)? Or even more, should CPAN modules be taken into >> account? How could it be that the Shell commands do not form a >> library, or a set of, of a sort? >> > > Different commands use different switches and do the same thing (sed vs awk > vs grep for tons of uses), bash is slower. And I find it easier for bad / > different data to break a shell script (well I can technically stop most > languages from earring with try / catch which is a plus but not the point) > and verifying data in bash is a pita. Also, idk of any debug option in bash > (perl -d, gdb, etc). > > However, this is not answering the op's question. So, while I started this, > I'll start a new thread if we wish to continue this (preferably with code > examples :) ). And I do hope you wish to continue this as I find the debate > fun but way OT (per op question) at this point. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cag9cjmkbggt3hrtev14yhebzoj+hwhtc0bnho2rbt9dncc2...@mail.gmail.com
