Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed2.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.001 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'bash': 0.07; 'option,': 0.07; 'python': 0.09; 'subset': 0.09; 'weak': 0.09; 'cc:addr :python-list': 0.10; 'language': 0.14; '6:00': 0.16; 'bash,': 0.16; "os/2's": 0.16; 'perl.': 0.16; 'sadly': 0.16; 'scripts.': 0.16; 'to:addr:pearwood.info': 0.16; 'to:addr:steve+comp.lang.python': 0.16; "to:name:steven d'aprano": 0.16; 'which,': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.17; 'shell': 0.18; 'feb': 0.19; 'stick': 0.22; 'cc:2**0': 0.23; '>': 0.23; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.24; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.25; 'header:In-Reply- To:1': 0.25; 'fit': 0.26; 'checking': 0.27; 'done.': 0.27; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.27; 'chris': 0.28; 'scripting,': 0.29; 'skip:& 10': 0.29; 'this.': 0.29; 'usually': 0.30; 'error': 0.30; 'skip:d 20': 0.34; 'agree': 0.34; 'received:google.com': 0.34; 'compared': 0.35; 'direction': 0.35; 'massive': 0.35; 'moved': 0.35; 'pm,': 0.35; 'really': 0.36; 'but': 0.36; 'too': 0.36; 'enough': 0.36; 'bad': 0.37; 'being': 0.37; 'rather': 0.37; 'far': 0.37; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'some': 0.38; 'short': 0.39; 'header:Received:5': 0.40; 'subject:...': 0.63; 'great': 0.64; '2013': 0.84; 'poorly': 0.93 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=dujGjMI5BDX1S0jxG/wkR3fJGTitvRW0jYXjy1DHgyI=; b=V5BJ4U3kXB2aKn/4xBfETKWIBr85B+le96WgUzWRM+1xY8FGPdrTe7v3CWsBzdlKG4 8ArdUwF/Bvbdaf2ud1Lmgbje4S08304UhsWO8eZHIp+TyDHoJVUqjIanaTW8xfuYmRwK MMv8ISCQN1/yYUi2OOnhqrpTrDqGjHkR/U5+BvhxjVFrYss31yA1ejcgyfuEidoEOZZ3 kMsW4C4fsirtyD5qpdjkzne5zB4eDTQ8JEuX5Z65dDON/00sKDN2DnqOjnIVBO+8P0GY giYqbZGI5iGGBXAZeyHEdAiVoi4PxDHOUMG7TkL7iH57uynkfuS1V//sUV1PKmVYQx29 4nXA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.133.133 with SMTP id pc5mr24907589lab.32.1360116859201; Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:14:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <5111b826$0$29969$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> References: <207d17ce-4bc7-487c-acde-6a7b9f66002b@googlegroups.com> <5111b826$0$29969$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:14:18 -0800 Subject: Re: Opinion on best practice... From: Dan Stromberg To: "Steven D'Aprano" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d042ef7533ee89704d504e269 Cc: python-list@python.org X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 50 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1360116867 news.xs4all.nl 6922 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:44866 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:38251 --f46d042ef7533ee89704d504e269 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Feb 5, 2013 6:00 PM, "Steven D'Aprano" < steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > > Chris Angelico wrote: > > > Python is not an "excellent option". It's a bad fit for shell > > scripting, it just happens to be way better than a weak shell. Having > > grown up on command.com, I found OS/2's cmd.exe to be a massive > > improvement, and Windows's cmd.exe to be rather less impressive... but > > both of them pale into insignificance compared to bash. > > I have to disagree with much of this. bash is a poorly designed language > which, in my opinion, is only good enough for short (under 20 lines) > throw-away scripts. I agree that Python is usually a great option, but sadly I also have to agree that bash has moved too far in the direction of Perl. However, if you can stick to a Bournish subset of bash, it's really good for some problems, being almost lispish and being very parallel. Error checking in shell needn't be haphazard, even though that's how it's usually done. --f46d042ef7533ee89704d504e269 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1


On Feb 5, 2013 6:00 PM, "Steven D&apos;Aprano" <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote:
>
> Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > Python is not an "excellent option". It's a bad fit for shell
> > scripting, it just happens to be way better than a weak shell. Having
> > grown up on command.com, I found OS/2's cmd.exe to be a massive
> > improvement, and Windows's cmd.exe to be rather less impressive... but
> > both of them pale into insignificance compared to bash.
>
> I have to disagree with much of this. bash is a poorly designed language
> which, in my opinion, is only good enough for short (under 20 lines)
> throw-away scripts.

I agree that Python is usually a great option, but sadly I also have to agree that bash has moved too far in the direction of Perl.

However, if you can stick to a Bournish subset of bash, it's really good for some problems, being almost lispish and being very parallel.

Error checking in shell needn't be haphazard, even though that's how it's usually done.

--f46d042ef7533ee89704d504e269--