> not learning enough bash to use it properly and then complaining about it By the same logic, whoever prefers C over assembler, Python over C, etc just doesn'

> not learning enough bash to use it properly and then complaining about it By the same logic, whoever prefers C over assembler, Python over C, etc just doesn't understand the latter language enough. I think this logic is flawed. > google chrome windows I wouldn't accept a shell that works only in a browser. If you would take a minute to actually look at https://github.com/ngs-lang/ngs/wiki/UI-Design https://github.com/ngs-lang/ngs/wiki/UI-Design , it reads: "Ability to support several i/o modules", with sub-items "Console module" and "Later: web module" > Bash is more than fine. Depends on the situation and task at hand. For me, most of the time, bash is not fine. I do have a bunch of bash scripts because for their task they are the best solution in my opinion... and that's what makes me sad. That is not fine. > You can't expect to get correct behavior without understanding your tools and your shell. By that logic, whoever complains about any flaws in a language (error handling and missing generics in Go come to mind) just doesn't understand the language. I think this logic is flawed. > You can't expect not to do error-checking and corner-case-checking and still have stuff working 100% of the time. I don't. That's bash and that is how it works... and I don't like it. Looking at two alternatives: exceptions vs error codes checking. I strongly disagree with error codes checking approach. I do prefer (in most of my scripts) uncaught exceptions (which would terminate the script) and smaller code. The alternative with error codes checking is either have substantially larger code or incorrect behaviour. I strongly disagree with the trade-off that bash makes. > can you really blame it on bash There is a lot of crap going around. Not everything is on bash.