On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:59:49AM +0000, Emil Velikov via arch-projects wrote:
Hi Eli,
Disclaimer: the following is a bit subtle topic, so I hope it doesn't spur a lot of off-topic.
On 19 February 2018 at 20:11, Eli Schwartz via arch-projects <arch-projects@archlinux.org> wrote:
Catch some cases that were missed in the previous run.
Signed-off-by: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org> ---
This patch is new + refactor some changes from: ftpdir-cleanup,sourceballs: replace external find command with bash globbing
cron-jobs/devlist-mailer | 6 +++--- cron-jobs/ftpdir-cleanup | 14 +++++++------- cron-jobs/integrity-check | 2 +- cron-jobs/sourceballs | 12 ++++++------ cron-jobs/update-web-db | 6 +++--- 5 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
Is there any performance or other technical benefit to using more bashisms?
The scripts run under bash, so why not take advantage of bash features? For example, bash's [[ and (( are less error prone and more featureful than the POSIX [, and builtins like mapfile and read (POSIX read has an extremely limited featureset) make I/O far simpler tasks. There's plenty more to like... Please don't try to talk about performance and shell in the same sentence. These are not performance-sensitive scripts, and shell is not a language to use when performance (of almost any kind) is relevant.
Reason being, that I am slowly going through different parts of Arch making it zsh friendly. While keeping the code brief and legible, of course.
Feel free to exemplify how conversion from bash to zsh has aided your goals while retaining portability to a supermajority of Arch systems. $ pacman -Q zsh error: package 'zsh' was not found
Guessing that I've picked the wrong hobby?
Almost certainly.
Thanks Emil