Open McDutchie opened 2 years ago
I have to ask: Why are you, @McDutchie, still working on trying to make (not keep) Ksh relevant? I made a mistake trying to do so several years ago. I did so primarily out of nostalgia because Ksh was the first Unix shell I liked. Primarily because the Bourne and Csh shells I used before Ksh in the 1980's were awful in comparison.
The Ksh source code was borderline beyond repair, or relevance, when I, along with ~siteshwar from RedHat, attempted to modernize it several years ago. No one should be using Ksh today. While I dislike the style of the Bash source code it, and the Zsh source code, are not nearly as awful and buggy as the Ksh source code. The Ksh source code is the worst I've ever seen in four decades of programming. I was honestly surprised how awful it was when I looked at it for the first time since I had used Ksh as my daily shell for almost a decade. I thought, naively, I could fix most of its problems using modern software development tools like OCLint to find and fix problems with the code. But then I noticed there was more than one function longer than 1000 lines containing multiple goto's. Not to mention the obvious bugs such as returning the address of a function (stack) local variable to the caller. The Ksh source code is irredeemable.
Thank you for your opinion, which is duly noted.
This is a regression test run on DragonFly BSD 6.1 x86_64, with some thousands of repetitive lines removed where marked: