[Slackbuilds-users] Patch proposal to remove bashisms from some scripts
joshuakwood at gmail.com
Tue Nov 2 20:09:09 UTC 2010
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:30 PM, B Watson <yalhcru at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/2/10, Max Miorim <miorimmax at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unless we're talking about using either /bin/bash or /bin/sh, the
> > problem that I see with this is that it would open the precedence to
> > accept submissions of scripts using other shells like csh and zsh,
> > that could be a problem for the people that review the scripts, as
> > they'd have to learn the particularities of other shells - it could
> > slow down the process of review->approval considerably.
> Yah, I hadn't thought about csh. Definitely agree the rule should be
> /bin/bash, or /bin/sh for scripts that were tested with ash.
> > the same thing that took 16.702 seconds using bash as /bin/sh took
> > 6.803 with ash and pretty much the same happens to every script that
> > we tested.
> Interesting. Never even occurred to me to test performance, I expect
> interpreters to be slow, and at least subconsciously I was aware that bash
> is bloated... but wouldn't have guessed ash would be *that* much faster.
> Hm. I just now thought I'd try a couple of things in ash, as an
> interactive shell, on slack64 13.1, and the damn thing segfaulted halfway
> through typing the first command. /me runs off to do some more testing...
> SlackBuilds-users mailing list
> SlackBuilds-users at slackbuilds.org
> Archives - http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/
> FAQ - http://slackbuilds.org/faq/
Certainly Bash is slower. It supports a wider array of scripting options,
Remember the golden rule of software: You can have it fast, you can have it
cheap, you can have it good. Pick two.
(Note: Not saying ash is not good. It just doesn't compare feature-wise to
Bash, which is also free...)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the SlackBuilds-users