3 ms·
Others' experiences may vary but personally speaking I have to write a fair amount of shell scripts that run on a range of machines, networks etc. At best its a
by ahurmazda 6y ago
Others' experiences may vary but personally speaking I have to write a fair amount of shell scripts that run on a range of machines, networks etc. At best its a pita to change shell on these ephemeral boxes, worst case its out of my control.
The lowest common denominator ends up being the good ol' bash (or sh)! Sure fish/oil is nice but quite a bit of mental gymnastics to keep them all straight in my head.
- throwawayboise 6y agoThis is why I use the default shell on whatever platform I'm working on. I want to know that my work does not first dependon on installing an alternate shell (often not possible, depending on the environment).
- chubot 6y agoThat's reasonable, but Oil can still be useful to you as a dev tool, since it implements a very large and sane subset of bash. Some details here: http://www.oilshell.org/why.html http://www.oilshell.org/why.html And something I just released is a better "set -x", which no other shell has: https://www.oilshell.org/release/0.8.7/doc/xtrace.html https://www.oilshell.org/release/0.8.7/doc/xtrace.html So you could debug your programs with Oil if bash tracing isn't enough (which it often isn't for me). Oil is also very easy to build and install -- all you need is a compiler, a shell, and make, and make will probably go away at some point.