Conrad's ALFS comments
kirchman at dfki.uni-kl.de
Wed Aug 28 01:10:45 PDT 2002
I knew I shouldn't have answered. Now I'm getting involved into one of
> Oh, there are plenty of good reasons! :)
> 1) Who has time to learn emacs when vim will do?
> 2) Who has time to learn vim when ed will do?
Well, don't forget about 'cat'! Real men use 'cat' as editor
> 3) Laziness, if you are not getting paid to make a good professional and
> maintainable system.
Yes, you are not getting paid with money, but possibly if you have to
edit a script again after a long while. I don't know about you, but
sometimes when I reedit one of my older programs I'm quite sure they
were written by somebody else (or it was one of those days when I
thought it was a good idea to do some programming after heavy alcohol
> 4) For interpretive languages, like shells, the script at the end of this
> post demonstrates my (small) point. As you get faster and faster
> equipment, this point becomes moot for single-user systems (usually).
> Thank goodness I still have this old dinosaur - otherwise my point
> might be moot *now*! BTW, RH 6.0 2.2 kernel, GNU sh 1.14.7.
Nice one! I reanimated my old 486 yesterday (about 33 bogomips) and
really could reproduce your results. I admit that I was a little surprised
by the result, so I agree that all those shell scripts containing 1000
variables or more should use variable names shorter than 50 characters.
I think you will see only very few difference in a real functional shell
script between using abbreviated versus long-version variable names. If
performance is an issue, you shouldn't use bash scripts in conjunction
with heavy variable use anyway.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe alfs-discuss' in the subject header of the message
More information about the alfs-discuss