Quote:
Originally Posted by rocket357
I think the point drl was getting at is that just because those moving parts are "behind the scenes" doesn't mean they don't exist. Is it harder to screw with it and mess stuff up if you can't see it? Sure...but that doesn't mean a well-written script is more prone to failure just because it doesn't hide the steps from you.
|
It's a question of responsibility, do you trust your copy/paste drill over an existing program? Why should you reimplement the same exact moving parts in shell, for each script you would want to make such a change in - when you have a tried and tested tool for doing it that has existed for over 35 years. It's just a waste of time. Coding hours should be spent on things that actually contribute to the program, not a substitute for learning the standard issue stuff.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by "7th Commandment of C Programming
Thou shalt study thy libraries and strive not to reinvent them without cause, that thy code may be short and readable and thy days pleasant and productive.
|
From the perspective of shell scripting, your utilities are much like the libraries of a C program.
__________________
My
Journal
Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''.