Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:17:51 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Scripting problem Message-ID: <20171009151751.3800f84c@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <1984508980.4145408.1507553196491@mail.yahoo.com> References: <7AB396F429EEB6890100F082@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <VI1PR02MB1200B33C1F59A223B84E9153F6770@VI1PR02MB1200.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com> <8C8E7D66788801594EC0FC4C@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <20171008100017.30ab5987.freebsd@edvax.de> <88D321A2CCD516AEF39DE8C3@Pauls-MacBook-Pro.local> <alpine.BSF.2.21.1710090615040.94613@wonkity.com> <1984508980.4145408.1507553196491@mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:46:36 +0000 (UTC) Paul Pathiakis via freebsd-questions wrote: > =20 > I find sh to be that 'tool' to use > when I want to call other tools and utilities.=C2=A0 (sed, awk, tr, etc) > ### I think people have gone way too far in creating 'scripting' > languages that are more programming languages than scripting.... > Personally, I tried learning PERL which tries to be everything to > regex.=C2=A0 The problem?=C2=A0 Lack of coherence... "I can do this 5 dif= ferent > ways in PERL"=C2=A0 Is that supposed to be a good thing when all five seem > to execute at different speeds, using different resources, etc? The same is true of shell scripting, and my understanding is that perl was designed to reproduce this for the benefit of experienced shell scripters.=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171009151751.3800f84c>