Re:Bash functions are better than I thought
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Sunday October 31, 2021 @07:56PM
(#29061668)
"Shell" as used here means the Bourne POSIX-like shell, such as NetBSD's Almquist shell, not userland utilities that the shell may or may not call in a script. Scripts can of course test for differences in utilities where there is uncertainty.
If scripts written for a POSIX-like "lowest common denominator" shell were not portable, methinks projects written for such a shell, such as autoconf, would not work on so many diffferent systems. The amount of free software found in open source OS repositories that is built using "configure" shell scripts is not small.
Debian and other Linux distributions use a shell derived from NetBSD's Almquist shell. People who design and maintain these operating systems suggest that, for non-interactive use, this Bourne shell is faster than Bash.
If scripts written for a POSIX-like "lowest common denominator" shell were not portable, methinks projects written for such a shell, such as autoconf, would not work on so many diffferent systems. The amount of free software found in open source OS repositories that is built using "configure" shell scripts is not small.
Debian and other Linux distributions use a shell derived from NetBSD's Almquist shell. People who design and maintain these operating systems suggest that, for non-interactive use, this Bourne shell is faster than Bash.