Category talk:Bash
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 comp.unix.shell if there's any consensus on the terminology. -- Erik Siers 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- 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)