A Bourne-style shell built from scratch in 35 minutes [video]

On this note, I need to build my own Terminal multiplexer - does anyone have a favorite primer of theirs for all the escape codes? Not only do I need to use them myself, but I need to handle them of child processes to restrict term sizes etc.<p>I can Google like ya&#x27;ll - I&#x27;m just asking if there are any favorite resources :)<p>Thanks

Then 35 weeks to get POSIX job control, pipes, handling signals and whatnot. 35 years to find the last bug.

<i>It supports (1) running commands with arbitrarily many arguments</i><p>Wouldn&#x27;t the size of the arguments be limited by sysconf(_SC_ARG_MAX) as explained here? <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;man7.org&#x2F;linux&#x2F;man-pages&#x2F;man2&#x2F;execve.2.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;man7.org&#x2F;linux&#x2F;man-pages&#x2F;man2&#x2F;execve.2.html</a><p>PS: Is the code available somewhere? I can&#x27;t play the video on Firefox on CentOS 6.

The Bourne Shell was, in my opinion, the worst of Robert Ludlum&#x27;s books.

By the way, IMHO much of the ugliness of shells comes from the requirement that simple filenames are to be used without additional escape characters. I think we should ditch that requirement.

Only typing the man page of the Bourne shell will take at least a few days.

There is more to writing a shell than simply reading commands and executing them after fork()ing. TTY handling must be done right¹ and interrupt and signal handling is rather tricky to get right as well².<p>(Not to mention, of course, that a Unix shell is very cumbersome to use without pipes and redirection. EDIT: Pipes are implemented, but not redirection?)<p>1. <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.linusakesson.net&#x2F;programming&#x2F;tty&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.linusakesson.net&#x2F;programming&#x2F;tty&#x2F;</a><p>2. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cons.org&#x2F;cracauer&#x2F;sigint.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cons.org&#x2F;cracauer&#x2F;sigint.html</a>

I&#x27;m surprised there are no comments about the video itself.<p>How was this video made? Imagine trying to make it. What would you do? You need to write the code, but do you do it before or after you write the script? Or do you write the script after you write up the code so you know how to produce it?<p>Everything flows so smoothly. It&#x27;s mesmerizing to watch. It&#x27;s like code appears as fast as he can talk. But in a natural way, where it seems like it&#x27;s typed as he&#x27;s talking. But he certainly isn&#x27;t typing it in realtime.<p>I&#x27;d like to make videos like this too, so I&#x27;d like to learn more about how to produce one.

Such negative Nellies. This is why I don&#x27;t publish anymore. You try to teach people something fun, and show people you can do quite a lot with very little. But it&#x27;s nothing but criticism, and none of it constructive.

Was expecting more guns, car chases, exotic city backgrounds, and slightly-above-average women from the new Bourne shell. Turns out it&#x27;s just a command line interpreter. Two stars.

Will this video eventually be paywall&#x27;d as well?

I&#x27;m impressed that destroyallsoftware is able to put their screencast library behind a $30&#x2F;mo paywall. Am I the only one who thinks that&#x27;s high?

But &#x27;ls&#x27; already has built-in sorting.

I was so disappointed that they chose Ruby. I would have been impressed if they had chosen bare C and still manage to build it under 35 minutes.

This was one of the projects in my Unix class in college. And yeah, it took about 35 minutes. :)