[ale] Bash vs Perl

[Ed Cashin]

I think that the Bourne shell itself had great success largely because of
its easy but powerful language.  Bash is backwards compatible, so if you
learn to program with Bourne shell all your scripts work with bash but also
with dash, ash, and others.

There is a great book by Blinn if you are interested in trying this take on
the situation.

https://smile.amazon.com/Portable-Shell-Programming-Extensive-Collection/dp/0134514947/

By the time I really need bash features, it's usually already time to move
to something like perl, C, Go, etc.



On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Chris Fowler <cfowler at outpostsentinel.com>
wrote:

> Not a rant or question, just a thought.
>
> I've been working on "Jenga Linux" and since I do not have many perl
> modules until later in the build of LFS 7.10 I'm sticking to bash as much
> as possible.  GNU STOW is an exception, but it uses perl in /tools from
> chapter 5 until it can be installed in chapter 6. Beyond that , the only
> perl module in chapter 5 is XML::Parser.  I could install all modules
> needed in /tools and use them in chapter 6, but I'm forcing myself to
> expand my bash experience by using what most other disti creators use.
>
> It would nice to find a book titled: "Bash for Perl Programmers".  Very
> simple tasks I do in Perl are a struggle in bash.  Stack Exchange is not
> short on answers.
>
> Chris
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
>


-- 
  Ed Cashin <ecashin at noserose.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20161023/04010d0e/attachment.html>