Re: writing shell scripts
- From: shore@xxxxxxxxx (Melinda Shore)
- Date: 19 Mar 2009 16:23:23 -0400
In article <atmdnZ3brMGaOl_UnZ2dnUVZ_goLAAAA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bob Melson <amia9018@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Look at it this way: I think
you'll agree that most, not all, but most, scripts are going to be, by
virtue of the problems they're intended to solve and the circumstances of
their use, relatively short.
Most stuff in this world seems to follow a Zipf
distribution, whether it's the size of bodies of water or
program length. I'm not sure that means anything whatsoever
in the context of this discussion. Now, you might be able
to make the case (in fact, you probably can) that to solve a
sufficiently complex problem well requires facilities that
aren't available in the standard shells and you can do a
better job of it in more well-developed languages that have
features <a>, <b>, and <c>, but in any event I'm quite
certain that you're focused on symptoms rather than causes,
or you've got your causality backwards, or something along
those lines. The issue here isn't *length*.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - shore@xxxxxxxxx
Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: writing shell scripts
- From: Bob Melson
- Re: writing shell scripts
- References:
- writing shell scripts
- From: Christopher Chambers
- Re: writing shell scripts
- From: Bob Melson
- Re: writing shell scripts
- From: Melinda Shore
- Re: writing shell scripts
- From: Bob Melson
- writing shell scripts
- Prev by Date: Re: writing shell scripts
- Next by Date: Re: writing shell scripts
- Previous by thread: Re: writing shell scripts
- Next by thread: Re: writing shell scripts
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|