Yes, there was the bourne sh on Unix but I don’t see how that’s relevant here. We’re talking about operating systems in use. Please explain the downvotes
It’s relevant because there are still platforms that don’t have actual Bash (e.g. containers using Busybox).
sh is not just a symlink: when invoked using the symlink, the target binary must run in POSIX compliant mode. So it’s effectively a sub-dialect.
Amber compiles to a language, not to a binary. So “why doesn’t it compile to sh” is a perfectly reasonable question, and refers to the POSIX shell dialect, not to the /bin/sh symlink itself.
Why not compile it to sh though.
There is no sh shell. /bin/sh is just a symlink to bash or dash or zsh etc.
But yes, the question is valid why it compiles specifically to bash and not something posix-compliant
lol
Yes, there was the bourne sh on Unix but I don’t see how that’s relevant here. We’re talking about operating systems in use. Please explain the downvotes
It’s relevant because there are still platforms that don’t have actual Bash (e.g. containers using Busybox).
shis not just a symlink: when invoked using the symlink, the target binary must run in POSIX compliant mode. So it’s effectively a sub-dialect.Amber compiles to a language, not to a binary. So “why doesn’t it compile to
sh” is a perfectly reasonable question, and refers to the POSIX shell dialect, not to the/bin/shsymlink itself.Thanks