Opinion on best practice...

Dan Stromberg drsalists at gmail.com
Wed Feb 6 03:14:18 CET 2013

On Feb 5, 2013 6:00 PM, "Steven D'Aprano" <
steve+comp.lang.python at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20130205/11022628/attachment.html>

More information about the Python-list mailing list