Well, the verbosity drop is good. >This is an assumption that's very brittle though. For example, which version of Python did you target with this helper scrip

Well, the verbosity drop is good. >This is an assumption that's very brittle though. For example, which version of Python did you target with this helper script? Do you know? And PS, and every other piece of software out there doesn't have that problem? Don't make me laugh. >And why is that diff for Powershell? It's just a shell with better affordances for automation than bash. But shell doesn't nessarily need automation affordances: we have Python/Perl/Ruby for that. What it does need is effective interactive use, which is where I think bash has PS beat. >I'm not chinese, but I can have sympathy for people who are. Also who are you to tell me [UTF-8 character removed because of bad assumptions in server code] is not a valid bash variable? That's a problem with Bash itself, which wasn't what I was talking about. My point was that text processing scripts (sed scripts, awk scripts, scripts using cut, etc.) won't choke on unicode, and frequently work pretty much as expected, so long as the tool versions involved can handle unicode, and sometimes even if they can't. If bash has broken unicode support right now, that's not a problem with the paradigm, that's a problem with bash itself, which can be fixed.