|
Shrug... I wouldn't mind them adding the -S as an extension, but I'm
pretty sure they won't, since it would break any existing scripts that
rely on the current behavior of -S. IBM has always been committed to
preserving backward compatibility (as you know.)
My point is that -S isn't "standard." It's a popular (and, arguably
useful) extension to -S. But it's not a standard, and therefore not a
bug. A poor design decision? Absolutely, I'll accept that. But I
can't see IBM considering it a bug.
I know a lot of Unix programmers, indeed, I'm one myself. Perhaps
15-20% of the work I do is on FreeBSD. The best programmers, the
experienced ones who are the best paid of the lot, are the ones who have
learned how to write portable code.
Every Unix system is a little different from others. Unix programmers
get good at writing code that's easy to port to other systems. They
take pride in it.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.