Date:	Mon, 27 Jan 1997 19:08:37 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT sympatico DOT ca>
Reply-To:	"Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT sympatico DOT ca>
To:	Weiqi Gao <weiqigao AT crl DOT com>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: 4DOS vs. bash
In-Reply-To:	<01bc0b16$43b8c5a0$0f02000a@weiqigao>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970127190310.2047F-100000@capslock.com>
Organization:	Your mom.
MIME-Version:	1.0

On 25 Jan 1997, Weiqi Gao wrote:

> K.A.R.L. <farega AT usc DOT es> wrote in article <32E4DF34 DOT 4D19 AT usc DOT es>...
> 
> >I've been reading about bash in the news and in the faq, and I was
> >wondering if it is worth the effort of moving from 4DOS to bash.
> 
> Bash is more powerful than 4DOS (user defined functions, here documents,
> etc.).  But 4DOS is more DOS compatible (launches Windows 3.1, etc.).  Bash
> is definitely worth learning, but I'm afraid you cannot replace 4DOS with
> it.
Bash is more powerful than 4DOS in a certain context.  However both
4DOS AND bash contain features that the other one doesn't.  Here
documents ARE possible in 4DOS.  Check out the TEXT command in 4DOS
help.  User defined functions callable from the command line are not
possible, however GOSUB/RETURN can be used to create subroutines
roughly equivalent in a batch file.

I use 4DOS in DOS, and bash in Linux.  I also use bash in DOS, but not
as a primary shell.  I use bash in DOS only for script programming and
for use with a few makefiles.

I highly recommend BOTH programs to serious programmers as I'd rather
not be without either.  


Mike A. Harris  -  Computer Consultant   http://www3.sympatico.ca/mharris
My dynamic address:      http://www3.sympatico.ca/mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT sympatico DOT ca        mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca

DJGPP: Current version 2.01

- Raw text -