Opinion on best practice...
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-list