this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
206 points (96.4% liked)
Programming
17377 readers
259 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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