Which is better printf or echo?
Solution 1:
Preferable and most widely used is not the same thing. While printf
is better for many reasons, most people still use echo
because the syntax is simpler.
The main reasons why you should prefer printf
are:
-
echo
is not standardized, it will behave differently on different systems. -
It is hard to predict what you're actually running when you
echo foo
. To illustrate, on my Debian system:$ type -a echo echo is a shell builtin echo is /bin/echo
As you can see, there are two different
echo
commands, one is a shell (bash in this case) builtin and another is a separate binary. Note thatbash
also has aprintf
builtin but its behavior is more standardized so it is less of an issue (thanks to @ RaduRădeanu for pointing it out). -
Since some (but not all) implementations of
echo
support command line switches, it is hard to print a string that starts with a-
. While many programs support--
to signify the end of switches and the beginning of arguments (for example,grep -- -a file
will find lines infile
that contain-a
),echo
does not. So, how do you haveecho
print-n
?$ echo -n ## no output $ echo '-n' ## no output $ echo "-n" ## no output $ echo \-n ## no output $ echo -e '\055n' ## using the ASCII code works but only on implementations -n ## that support -e
printf
can do this easily:$ printf -- '-n\n' -n $ printf '%s\n' -n -n $ printf '\055n\n' -n
For more information than you ever wanted to know on why printf
is better than echo
, see this answer to a similar question on http://unix.stackexchange.com:
https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/65819/22222
Solution 2:
To ask which is preferable is itself incomplete.
If all one wishes to do is emit one or more lines of text terminated by newlines, then echo suffices. If anything more clever is intended, specifically including a "partial line" that does not have the newline, then printf is best for that purpose.