3 ms·
> I don't think that a shell should be a complete programming language. What do you mean exactly? If you have pipes and lists (e.g., the lines on a file) you
by enriquto 6y ago
> I don't think that a shell should be a complete programming language.
What do you mean exactly? If you have pipes and lists (e.g., the lines on a file) you are Turing-complete and people can and will make arbitrary programs. How would you like, precisely, to restrict the shell language so that it is not Turing-complete?
- tutfbhuf 6y agoI mean shell should not be python, like xonsh. In my opinion it should not add programming language features (like types, futures, ADTs,...), but instead should clean up the existing built-ins + maybe little bit coreutils as built-ins.
- enriquto 6y agoNever heard about xonsh, it looks really cool. Seems like a step in the good direction (from python to shell). It needs a few steps more to attain the elegant perfection of the shell language, for example, removing this "type" stuff from the variables ;)