Re: KISS'ed shell

Marc Chantreux wrote:
> Lennart Borgman wrote:
>> Did you try win-bash (an old bash, version 1.14.2):
>>  http://win-bash.sourceforge.net/
> 
> never head about it before. I just downloaded it and tested:
> 
> Step 1 : edition
> 
> no vi and emacs mode (in todo list), so no completion system too?
> tcsh as emacs and vi mode, completion and bindkey.
> 
> Step 2 : programming
> 
> i think to myself that win-bash can be good as sh for makefiles. but
> 
> a=1
> 
> good ... it works ...
> 
> let a++
> 
> error :)
> 
> : $(( a++ ))
> 
> error again!
> 
> [ -n $a ] && echo good
> 
> says good ! wow !
> 
> [ -n $z ] && echo good
> 
> says good ! arghhh !
> 
> Step 3 : Conclusion
> 
> - tcsh is bad for programming but the program i've done works fine.
> - win-bash cannot be used as interactive shell (as it is as poor as cmd 
> for the moment)
> - win-bash is too buggy to be used as sh in makefile.
> 
> so why use it? peraps i missed something!


Thanks for telling us. I wonder what they meant when they said that the 
win-bash port successfully handled all the scripts they tested. Did you 
see the scripts somewhere?


> I think the lake of open source sh is a real problem so if i had more 
> time to spend for a windows shell , i would try to port dash (as 
> minimalist sh replacement, it can be easier to port than bash). If i was 
> really skilled, i would try to port zsh (wich is much powerfull than bash).


There is an old port of zsh (or maybe was, I am not sure I can find it 
now). Yes, a unix style shell would makes things easier for those 
working on multiple platforms or porting software in either direction.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV