On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:29:03PM -0700, Bill Campbell wrote: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> This is actually just the difference between sh and bash ... > >> > > >> >differences in, say, arithmetic handling and loops can sometimes > >> >mean rewriting parts of shell scripts depending on whether it is > >> >going to run in BSD or Linux. > >> > >> That's a major argument for doing things in python or perl as > >> they are consistent across all platforms ... > > > >If one is going to require the installation of something that may > >not be part of a base system, that something might as well be bash :) > > One of the reasons I started using perl almost 20 years ago was > that it was cleaner and more consistent than tying a bunch of > utilities together with the shell (not to mention only having to > master one type of regular expressions :-). > > I now use python for the vast majority of my development work > instead of perl as I find it much cleaner with better object > oriented features.
I'm of a similar mind, except that for OOP stuff I prefer Ruby, and for non-OOP stuff I still generally use Perl. Python doesn't really whet my whistle, so to speak. > > When I write shell scripts, I use a very limited set of features > which are /bin/sh compatible. As soon as I start having to do > anything much more than run a program against a list of files, I > switch to python. $language =~ s/python/Perl/ Otherwise, ditto what you said. Much like PHP, I find that shell languages as scripting syntaxes don't really scale well in terms of maintainability. YMMV, of course. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Baltasar Gracian: "A wise man gets more from his enemies than a fool from his friends." _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
