If I was issued a Windows laptop at this point, instead of the Mac that I
have now, I'd be able to install bash/etc and have Sublime write files into
my Linux filesystem where I can use git and chefdk (I'm guessing, haven't
actually tried that yet, though it's on the list when I have spare time),
i
On Fri, 13 May 2016, Yves Dorfsman wrote:
On 2016-05-12 17:08, Morgan Blackthorne wrote:
Maybe. Right now bash under Windows can only do stuff inside Linux (outside of
the filesystems which are mounted). You still can't launch Windows
commands/applications from bash, which is pretty limiting. M
Yves Dorfsman writes:
> Once you've used any other prog language, bash seems to be inside out
> (variable global by default, ignoring all errors by default, etc...)
Let's just remember that
1. bash is primarily meant to be an interactive shell, and the
programming features are primarily or
Mark McCullough writes:
> ksh has supported non-global vars for some time using typeset inside a
> function declaration (using a different function declaration syntax than used
> by old sh to avoid confusion). Support for much more complex structures has
> been there for quite some years now,
Its always been bash for me. Sure its annoying sometimes, but its pretty
portable between Linux distros and even Unixes (like OS X).
Though there are times when I want something more powerful, so I think I need
to start learning Python for those situations.
> On May 12, 2016, at 18:38, Yves
Re local variables: I avoided locals as a bashism (not POSIX are they?) for
the longest time but I've given in.
I also use bash getopts for any scripts which take arguments and will be
re-used by other people. Bash getopts is so much better than /bin/getopt
that I just can't ignore it.
I also h
On 2016-05-13 06:30, Mark Lamourine wrote:
> I use Bash, but I have come to do something I don't see elsewhere much.
>
> I make a lot of use of functions and local variables. Basically any time I
> see a coherent string of commands whether it's a pipe or a set of logical
> checks, I name the oper
On 2016-05-12 17:08, Morgan Blackthorne wrote:
> Maybe. Right now bash under Windows can only do stuff inside Linux (outside of
> the filesystems which are mounted). You still can't launch Windows
> commands/applications from bash, which is pretty limiting. Most anything folks
> do currently in Pow
To keep our shell scripts relatively consistent and avoid code reinvention,
I've written a suite of shell functions that ends up in a sourceable file
in /usr/local/etc. It contains functions for cleaning up temporary files
and directories, set PATH appropriately based on OS, output the date in
ISO8
This is one of those wonderful conversations to have at times. I
starting using Unix with Encore Multimax UMAX language, and for
whatever reason, fell into using csh as my shell, then tcsh because I
could edit the command lines.
As my career progressed, I used alot of perl since being a SysAdmin
Bash when it's quick, Ruby (Node.js or Python) if I have to use 3rd party
libs/parse or build JSON payloads.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:21 PM, Dave Close
mailto:d...@compata.com>> wrote:
I am astounded by the number of non-bash scripts I've read that are
nothing more than feel-good wrappers aroun
Maybe. Right now bash under Windows can only do stuff inside Linux (outside
of the filesystems which are mounted). You still can't launch Windows
commands/applications from bash, which is pretty limiting. Most anything
folks do currently in PowerShell wouldn't be achievable in bash until that
barri
I usually tend to agree, though sh vs bash does occasionally make a
difference. But yeah, around that time I'm usually looking to refactor it
entirely.
On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 4:29 PM, David Lang wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2016, Jack Coats wrote:
>
> Several friends hated bash (Bourne Again Shell)
So given that I work a lot with Chef a lot of my scripts tend to be ruby,
so there's less context-switching involved in languages. That said I still
write the occasional bash script because it's just quick and easy for
simple tasks, especially where I don't need to do complex parsing or
looping.
O
I'm amazed by this as well. A particular pet peeve of mine is a (for
instance) Perl script that looks like this:
$out = `cmd | grep foo | awk '{print $1}'| sed -e 's!baz!bar!g'`
Not only is this something that can be done entirely in Perl, but it's
something that can be done entirely in awk as we
I use Bash, but I have come to do something I don't see elsewhere much.
I make a lot of use of functions and local variables. Basically any time I
see a coherent string of commands whether it's a pipe or a set of logical
checks, I name the operation and put it in a function. String values are
'r
> On 2016-05-12, at 15:38 , Yves Dorfsman wrote:
>
>
> A lot of people love to hate bash, and there are good reasons for it, but it
> seems that there isn’t an obvious replacement for it.
ksh93 is the obvious replacement. I always felt that ksh was intended to be a
scripting language, bash w
17 matches
Mail list logo
