Category talk:Bash

From Rosetta Code
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Short Circuit in topic Bash: language or implementation?

Bash: language or implementation?

I'm sick of changing Bash entries to Unix Shell + {works with|Bash}. It seems visitors to this site expect Bash to be its own language. Whichever way we choose, we ought to clean up the other choice to match. --IanOsgood 20:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In addition to this category, there's also Bourne Again SHell and Bourne Shell.
Perhaps this category should be renamed to something like Category:Bourne shell, and those other two could then be marked as implementations. -- Erik Siers 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bourne Shell is distinct. It remains the lowest common denominator for standard shell scripts on a Unix system. --IanOsgood 19:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is that, even with all the enhancements and additions, bash could be viewed as an implementation of the Bourne shell. To me, "Unix shell" should include non-Bourne shells, such as C shell, tclsh, etc., and that does seem to be how it's handled right now (i.e. your above-mentioned "works-with" additions).
Hmm... thinking of it that way, the way you're handling it right now does seem to make sense... and yet, the way other users view it makes sense too. After all, a C shell script probably can't be handled by /bin/sh (unless you've linked sh --> csh, or written the script as a multi-language monstrosity).
It might be worth asking the regs in if there's any consensus on the terminology. -- Erik Siers 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need some kind of boilerplate for "I hope to fix this with SMW, but we need to resolve SMW peformance problems first." This has been on my mind.
I hope to eventually move away from Category pages for describing languages, and be able to use implicit implementation to resolve issues like "is this UNIX Shell, Bash, Bourne, ksh or what?" and questions like "Is this BASIC, AppleSoft BASIC, BASICA"...ditto Lisps, SQLs et al. Semantic relationships should allow us to be specific in explicit invocation, and pick up implicit support from there (for satisfying impl and unimple quesions for related languages.) --Michael Mol 04:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I assume SMW has some sort of tutorial or how-to somewhere? I didn't look beyond their WP page. -- Erik Siers 05:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This will be a good start, and a good place to ask more questions: Rosetta_Code:Village_Pump/Semantic_MediaWiki --Michael Mol 13:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]