Apparently, csh programming is considered harmful.

[Dominic Fandrey]

Frank Shute wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 06:57:09AM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
>>> On December 14, 2007 at 08:03PM Frank Shute wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:00:14PM -0500, Gerard Seibert wrote:
>>>>> On December 14, 2007 at 04:10PM Frank Shute wrote:
>>>> [ snip ]
>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy with sh as the system shell though; it's light weight:
>>>>>
>>>>> $ ls -l /bin/sh
>>>>> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  111028 Nov 30 00:10 /bin/sh
>> ~ $ ls -l /bin/sh
>> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  111788 Oct  5 13:55 /bin/sh*
> 
> I can understand why the size of sh might be different. Different
> patch levels. (Built almost 2 months apart).
> 
>>
>>>>> $ ls -l /bin/ksh
>>>>> -r-xr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  681584 Oct  6 12:33 /bin/ksh
>>>>>
>>>>> How about giving us all a laugh and posting the results for bash ;)
>>>> ~ $ ls -l /usr/local/bin/bash
>>>> -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  643984 Sep 12 15:51 /usr/local/bin/bash*
>>>>
>>> pdksh has put on weight. Used to be ~300k in the 4.* days and bash
>>> about 500k IIRC. On my machine bash is bigger than yours (newer version?):
>> ~ $ bash --version
>> bash --version
>> GNU bash, version 3.2.25(0)-release (i386-portbld-freebsd6.2)
>> Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> 
> Same as mine:
> 
> $ bash --version
> GNU bash, version 3.2.25(0)-release (i386-portbld-freebsd6.2)
> Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> 
> I'm not too sure why my bash is different in size. I guess it sucked
> in slightly different code when built due to our base systems being the
> 2 months apart.
> 
> [snip]
> 

Such differences can as well happen due to different CPUTYPE settings.