Why are some bash commands both built-in and external?












1















Some commands are internal built-in bash commands while others are external (other programs). I see why certain commands need to be built-in. Some of the reasons are:




  1. If a command needs to change the internal state of the shell process.

  2. If a command performs a very basic operation in the shell.

  3. If a command is called often and needs to be made fast. An external command is executed by loading an external program and hence is slower.


But why are some commands both built-in and external, for eg echo and test? I understand echo is used a lot and thus is built-in (Reason 3). But then why also have it as an external command and have a binary for it in /bin/echo? The built-in version of echo will always take precedence over the external version and thus, the external version is hardly ever used. So, why then have an external version of it at all?






linux bash shell terminal







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Consider also that bash is not the only shell out there. At some point in its history bash may have decided to make a command internal, e.g. for reason #3 - but there are still other shells invoking the tool, so it has to continue existing as an external command.

    – user4815162342
    Nov 19 '18 at 11:30
















1















Some commands are internal built-in bash commands while others are external (other programs). I see why certain commands need to be built-in. Some of the reasons are:




  1. If a command needs to change the internal state of the shell process.

  2. If a command performs a very basic operation in the shell.

  3. If a command is called often and needs to be made fast. An external command is executed by loading an external program and hence is slower.


But why are some commands both built-in and external, for eg echo and test? I understand echo is used a lot and thus is built-in (Reason 3). But then why also have it as an external command and have a binary for it in /bin/echo? The built-in version of echo will always take precedence over the external version and thus, the external version is hardly ever used. So, why then have an external version of it at all?






linux bash shell terminal







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    Consider also that bash is not the only shell out there. At some point in its history bash may have decided to make a command internal, e.g. for reason #3 - but there are still other shells invoking the tool, so it has to continue existing as an external command.

    – user4815162342
    Nov 19 '18 at 11:30














1












1








1








Some commands are internal built-in bash commands while others are external (other programs). I see why certain commands need to be built-in. Some of the reasons are:




  1. If a command needs to change the internal state of the shell process.

  2. If a command performs a very basic operation in the shell.

  3. If a command is called often and needs to be made fast. An external command is executed by loading an external program and hence is slower.


But why are some commands both built-in and external, for eg echo and test? I understand echo is used a lot and thus is built-in (Reason 3). But then why also have it as an external command and have a binary for it in /bin/echo? The built-in version of echo will always take precedence over the external version and thus, the external version is hardly ever used. So, why then have an external version of it at all?






linux bash shell terminal







share|improve this question
















Some commands are internal built-in bash commands while others are external (other programs). I see why certain commands need to be built-in. Some of the reasons are:




  1. If a command needs to change the internal state of the shell process.

  2. If a command performs a very basic operation in the shell.

  3. If a command is called often and needs to be made fast. An external command is executed by loading an external program and hence is slower.


But why are some commands both built-in and external, for eg echo and test? I understand echo is used a lot and thus is built-in (Reason 3). But then why also have it as an external command and have a binary for it in /bin/echo? The built-in version of echo will always take precedence over the external version and thus, the external version is hardly ever used. So, why then have an external version of it at all?






linux bash shell terminal




linux bash shell terminal






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 18 '18 at 20:14







Marko Cain

















asked Nov 18 '18 at 20:01









Marko CainMarko Cain

474




474








  • 1





    Consider also that bash is not the only shell out there. At some point in its history bash may have decided to make a command internal, e.g. for reason #3 - but there are still other shells invoking the tool, so it has to continue existing as an external command.

    – user4815162342
    Nov 19 '18 at 11:30














  • 1





    Consider also that bash is not the only shell out there. At some point in its history bash may have decided to make a command internal, e.g. for reason #3 - but there are still other shells invoking the tool, so it has to continue existing as an external command.

    – user4815162342
    Nov 19 '18 at 11:30








1




1





Consider also that bash is not the only shell out there. At some point in its history bash may have decided to make a command internal, e.g. for reason #3 - but there are still other shells invoking the tool, so it has to continue existing as an external command.

– user4815162342
Nov 19 '18 at 11:30





Consider also that bash is not the only shell out there. At some point in its history bash may have decided to make a command internal, e.g. for reason #3 - but there are still other shells invoking the tool, so it has to continue existing as an external command.

– user4815162342
Nov 19 '18 at 11:30












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














It's exactly your point 3. When a command does very little (echo is a good example) spawning a new process dominates the run time behavior. With growing disks and bandwidth and code bases you always reach a spot when you have so much data and so many files (our code base at work has 100k files!!) that one less spawn per file makes a difference of minutes.



That's also why the typical built-in is a drop-in replacement which takes (perhaps a superset of) the same arguments as the binary.



You also ask why the old binary is still retained even though bash has it as a built-in — the answer is that a lot of programs rely on the existence of that /bin/echo. It's actually standardized.



The bash is only one of many user interfaces and offline command interpreters. They all have different sets of built-ins. Some shells are purposefully small and rely a lot on what you could call "legacy" binaries. One example is ash and its successor, dash. dash is now the default /bin/sh in Ubuntu and Debian due to its speed, and is popular for embedded systems due to its small size. (But even dash has builtins for echo, test and dozens of other commands, and provides a command history for interactive use.)






share|improve this answer


























  • But why not have it only as an internal command then, like cd? What's the purpose of making it external as well?

    – Marko Cain
    Nov 18 '18 at 20:13













  • @MarkoCain Oh.... I'll answer that in the post.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Nov 18 '18 at 20:14











  • Fedora (and RHEL?) does have an external /bin/cd script which simply calls the /bin/sh builtin cd command. It's only purpose, as far as I can tell, is to check whether a "cd" command will succeed, without actually changing directories in the current shell.

    – simon3270
    Nov 20 '18 at 11:03











Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53364895%2fwhy-are-some-bash-commands-both-built-in-and-external%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














It's exactly your point 3. When a command does very little (echo is a good example) spawning a new process dominates the run time behavior. With growing disks and bandwidth and code bases you always reach a spot when you have so much data and so many files (our code base at work has 100k files!!) that one less spawn per file makes a difference of minutes.



That's also why the typical built-in is a drop-in replacement which takes (perhaps a superset of) the same arguments as the binary.



You also ask why the old binary is still retained even though bash has it as a built-in — the answer is that a lot of programs rely on the existence of that /bin/echo. It's actually standardized.



The bash is only one of many user interfaces and offline command interpreters. They all have different sets of built-ins. Some shells are purposefully small and rely a lot on what you could call "legacy" binaries. One example is ash and its successor, dash. dash is now the default /bin/sh in Ubuntu and Debian due to its speed, and is popular for embedded systems due to its small size. (But even dash has builtins for echo, test and dozens of other commands, and provides a command history for interactive use.)






share|improve this answer


























  • But why not have it only as an internal command then, like cd? What's the purpose of making it external as well?

    – Marko Cain
    Nov 18 '18 at 20:13













  • @MarkoCain Oh.... I'll answer that in the post.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Nov 18 '18 at 20:14











  • Fedora (and RHEL?) does have an external /bin/cd script which simply calls the /bin/sh builtin cd command. It's only purpose, as far as I can tell, is to check whether a "cd" command will succeed, without actually changing directories in the current shell.

    – simon3270
    Nov 20 '18 at 11:03
















3














It's exactly your point 3. When a command does very little (echo is a good example) spawning a new process dominates the run time behavior. With growing disks and bandwidth and code bases you always reach a spot when you have so much data and so many files (our code base at work has 100k files!!) that one less spawn per file makes a difference of minutes.



That's also why the typical built-in is a drop-in replacement which takes (perhaps a superset of) the same arguments as the binary.



You also ask why the old binary is still retained even though bash has it as a built-in — the answer is that a lot of programs rely on the existence of that /bin/echo. It's actually standardized.



The bash is only one of many user interfaces and offline command interpreters. They all have different sets of built-ins. Some shells are purposefully small and rely a lot on what you could call "legacy" binaries. One example is ash and its successor, dash. dash is now the default /bin/sh in Ubuntu and Debian due to its speed, and is popular for embedded systems due to its small size. (But even dash has builtins for echo, test and dozens of other commands, and provides a command history for interactive use.)






share|improve this answer


























  • But why not have it only as an internal command then, like cd? What's the purpose of making it external as well?

    – Marko Cain
    Nov 18 '18 at 20:13













  • @MarkoCain Oh.... I'll answer that in the post.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Nov 18 '18 at 20:14











  • Fedora (and RHEL?) does have an external /bin/cd script which simply calls the /bin/sh builtin cd command. It's only purpose, as far as I can tell, is to check whether a "cd" command will succeed, without actually changing directories in the current shell.

    – simon3270
    Nov 20 '18 at 11:03














3












3








3







It's exactly your point 3. When a command does very little (echo is a good example) spawning a new process dominates the run time behavior. With growing disks and bandwidth and code bases you always reach a spot when you have so much data and so many files (our code base at work has 100k files!!) that one less spawn per file makes a difference of minutes.



That's also why the typical built-in is a drop-in replacement which takes (perhaps a superset of) the same arguments as the binary.



You also ask why the old binary is still retained even though bash has it as a built-in — the answer is that a lot of programs rely on the existence of that /bin/echo. It's actually standardized.



The bash is only one of many user interfaces and offline command interpreters. They all have different sets of built-ins. Some shells are purposefully small and rely a lot on what you could call "legacy" binaries. One example is ash and its successor, dash. dash is now the default /bin/sh in Ubuntu and Debian due to its speed, and is popular for embedded systems due to its small size. (But even dash has builtins for echo, test and dozens of other commands, and provides a command history for interactive use.)






share|improve this answer















It's exactly your point 3. When a command does very little (echo is a good example) spawning a new process dominates the run time behavior. With growing disks and bandwidth and code bases you always reach a spot when you have so much data and so many files (our code base at work has 100k files!!) that one less spawn per file makes a difference of minutes.



That's also why the typical built-in is a drop-in replacement which takes (perhaps a superset of) the same arguments as the binary.



You also ask why the old binary is still retained even though bash has it as a built-in — the answer is that a lot of programs rely on the existence of that /bin/echo. It's actually standardized.



The bash is only one of many user interfaces and offline command interpreters. They all have different sets of built-ins. Some shells are purposefully small and rely a lot on what you could call "legacy" binaries. One example is ash and its successor, dash. dash is now the default /bin/sh in Ubuntu and Debian due to its speed, and is popular for embedded systems due to its small size. (But even dash has builtins for echo, test and dozens of other commands, and provides a command history for interactive use.)







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 19 '18 at 11:52

























answered Nov 18 '18 at 20:11









Peter A. SchneiderPeter A. Schneider

9,3812142




9,3812142













  • But why not have it only as an internal command then, like cd? What's the purpose of making it external as well?

    – Marko Cain
    Nov 18 '18 at 20:13













  • @MarkoCain Oh.... I'll answer that in the post.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Nov 18 '18 at 20:14











  • Fedora (and RHEL?) does have an external /bin/cd script which simply calls the /bin/sh builtin cd command. It's only purpose, as far as I can tell, is to check whether a "cd" command will succeed, without actually changing directories in the current shell.

    – simon3270
    Nov 20 '18 at 11:03



















  • But why not have it only as an internal command then, like cd? What's the purpose of making it external as well?

    – Marko Cain
    Nov 18 '18 at 20:13













  • @MarkoCain Oh.... I'll answer that in the post.

    – Peter A. Schneider
    Nov 18 '18 at 20:14











  • Fedora (and RHEL?) does have an external /bin/cd script which simply calls the /bin/sh builtin cd command. It's only purpose, as far as I can tell, is to check whether a "cd" command will succeed, without actually changing directories in the current shell.

    – simon3270
    Nov 20 '18 at 11:03

















But why not have it only as an internal command then, like cd? What's the purpose of making it external as well?

– Marko Cain
Nov 18 '18 at 20:13







But why not have it only as an internal command then, like cd? What's the purpose of making it external as well?

– Marko Cain
Nov 18 '18 at 20:13















@MarkoCain Oh.... I'll answer that in the post.

– Peter A. Schneider
Nov 18 '18 at 20:14





@MarkoCain Oh.... I'll answer that in the post.

– Peter A. Schneider
Nov 18 '18 at 20:14













Fedora (and RHEL?) does have an external /bin/cd script which simply calls the /bin/sh builtin cd command. It's only purpose, as far as I can tell, is to check whether a "cd" command will succeed, without actually changing directories in the current shell.

– simon3270
Nov 20 '18 at 11:03





Fedora (and RHEL?) does have an external /bin/cd script which simply calls the /bin/sh builtin cd command. It's only purpose, as far as I can tell, is to check whether a "cd" command will succeed, without actually changing directories in the current shell.

– simon3270
Nov 20 '18 at 11:03




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53364895%2fwhy-are-some-bash-commands-both-built-in-and-external%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

這個網誌中的熱門文章

Tangent Lines Diagram Along Smooth Curve

圖片
7 1 I am trying to replicate a diagram and have a minimal example. I don't know how to add additional tangents between the specified points and preserve smoothness. documentclass{article} usepackage{tikz} usetikzlibrary{calc,intersections} begin{document} begin{tikzpicture} % Axes draw [->, name path=x] (-1,0) -- (11,0) node [right] {$x$}; draw [->] (0,-1) -- (0,6) node [above] {$y$}; % Origin node at (0,0) [below left] {$0$}; % Points coordinate (start) at (1,-0.8); coordinate (c1) at (3,3); coordinate (c2) at (5.5,1.5); coordinate (c3) at (8,4); coordinate (end) at (10.5,-0.8); % show the points foreach n in {start,c1,c2,c3,end} fill [black] (n) circle (2pt) node [below] {}; % join the coordinates draw [thick,name path=curve] (start) to[out=70,in=180] (c1) to[out=0,in=180]
閱讀完整內容

Yusuf al-Mu'taman ibn Hud

圖片
Main article: Taifa of Zaragoza Al-Mu'taman Ruler of Zaragoza Reign 1081–1085 Predecessor Ahmad al-Muqtadir Successor Al-Mustain II Born Zaragoza Died 1085 Full name Yusuf ibn Ahmad al-Mu'taman ibn Hūd House Banu Hud Yusuf ibn Ahmad al-Mu'taman ibn Hūd (Arabic: المؤتمن بالله يوسف إبن أحمد إبن هود ‎, al-Mutaman bi l-Lah , died c. 1085) was the third king of the Banu Hud dynasty who ruled over the Taifa of Zaragoza from 1081 to 1085. Yusuf al-Mutaman reigned during the height of power of Muslim Zaragoza , following the thriving period of his father Ahmad al-Muqtadir. He continued his father's efforts and created around him a court of intellectuals, living in the beautiful palace of Aljafería, nicknamed as "the palace of joy". Al-Mu'taman was also a scholarly king and a patron of science, philosophy and arts. As an example of a wise king, he knew astrology, philosophy, and especially mathematics, a discipline in which
閱讀完整內容

Zucchini

圖片
This article is about the vegetable. For other uses, see Zucchini (disambiguation). Zucchini (courgette) A striped and a uniform color zucchini Genus Cucurbita Species Cucurbita pepo Origin 19th century northern Italy The zucchini ( / z uː ˈ k iː n i / , American English) or courgette ( / k ʊər ˈ ʒ ɛ t / , British English) is a summer squash which can reach nearly 1 metre (100 cm; 39 in) in length, but is usually harvested when still immature at about 15 to 25 cm (6 to 10 in). [1] A zucchini is a thin-skinned cultivar of what in Britain and Ireland is referred to as a marrow. [2] [3] In South Africa, a zucchini is known as a baby marrow. Along with certain other squashes and pumpkins, the zucchini belongs to the species Cucurbita pepo . It can be dark or light green. A related hybrid, the golden zucchini, is a deep yellow or orange color. [4] In a culinary context, the zucchini is treated as a vegetable; it is usually cooked and presented as a savory dish o
閱讀完整內容