Re: [SoX-users] Mac OS X beginner seeks support for SoX and scripting: splitting 2-channel .wav´s in two .mp3´s

[Jan S. <ha...@st...>]

On Jan 30 03:30:38, fm...@gm... wrote:
> > > On Jan 29 09:00:16, jr...@co... wrote:
> > >
> > > Scripting is certainly a fantastic skill, and opens many
> > > doors! For scripting on OS X, I'd recommend "man bash"
> > > rather than "man sh", as the default shell on this platform
> > > is bash.
> 
> > Jan Stary wrote:
> > 
> > scripting 101: use plain sh in your scripts, not bash,
> > so that your scripts are portable to other UNIX systems,
> > some of which do not even have bash; sh is everywhere,
> > and is almost the same everywhere.
> 
> Scripting 102.  Use the best tool for the job.  Use bash if it's
> a better choice than sh.

We are totally OT now of course, but how is bash
a better tool for a for-cyclus wrapping a sox call?

The actual code is a few trivial lines. Using bash
for it instead of sh will make a single difference:
you will not be able to run it where bash does not exist.

> Portability isn't the only factor to consider.  And even sh only
> manages "almost the same", so it isn't 100% portable.

The differences in various implementations of sh(1)
are quite subtle, and only pop up on the very borders
of the POSIX specification. Totally not the case here.

> So like any other choice, there are compromises and costs.  The
> challenge is evaluating the situation and deciding which is
> right for a _you_ and your situation.

Jesus, he wants a for-loop. Restricting to plain sh(1),
you lose _nothing_, and gain portability.

> For beginners, I encourage using scripts that match the shell.
> So if the shell is bash, that would be bash scripts.

This, sir, is complete bullshit.