From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 12 05:58:07 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1007E19B for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:58:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from stangl.us (stangl.us [66.93.193.95]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCEBB20F for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:58:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from scout.stangl.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by scout.stangl.us (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16A222806 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:58:03 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at stangl.us Received: from stangl.us ([127.0.0.1]) by scout.stangl.us (scout.stangl.us [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id la2MQxB21DEA for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:58:02 -0600 (CST) Received: by scout.stangl.us (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5F09222805; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:58:02 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:58:02 -0600 From: Alex Stangl To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Maybe somebody knows a good Bourne Shell book or tutorial? Message-ID: <20141212055802.GB45115@scout.stangl.us> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <54892F4C.1030906@rawbw.com> <20141211200241.GA43214@scout.stangl.us> <548A1095.6010301@radel.com> <20141212062631.a3d891fe.freebsd@edvax.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141212062631.a3d891fe.freebsd@edvax.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 05:58:07 -0000 On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 06:26:31AM +0100, Polytropon wrote: > Additionally, it's worth knowing the _difference_ between > the Bourne Shell and the BASH extensions, because those > two shells aren't the same, even though there are people > who seem to think this. When the "dash" shell enters the > stage, the fun is about to start. ;-) Many of us prefer to just target the POSIX standard. This way our scripts should just work on any POSIX-compliant shell. Oftentimes it seems like people use BASH-isms not because there is any requirement to do so, or any performance reason, but simply because they always use BASH and it just seems natural to them to use all of its scripting language. For those of us sticking with POSIX, I'm not sure what the value of looking at BASH extensions is, except possibly if needing to translate a script littered with BASH-isms. If dash helps people see the value of sticking to standards, that seems like a good thing. Alex