4 ms·
No, that's just an exaggerated caricature of what I'm saying. I'm only saying you should avoid using modern things needlessly. This means, don't do it when the
by dataflow 6y ago
No, that's just an exaggerated caricature of what I'm saying.
I'm only saying you should avoid using modern things needlessly. This means, don't do it when the POSIX-compliant syntax also serves your needs. e.g., don't do [[ -f "$foo" ]] when you could just as easily do [ -f "$foo" ]. And if you do need to use Bash-specific features, make sure it's safe enough that foreseeable misuses will fail safely. Or when that's not possible, try to mitigate it somehow (maybe with a comment, or by putting in some extra dynamic checks, or other solutions you can think of).
And this goes for other things too, not just Bash. Probably outside programming too.
- fooblat 6y ago> I'm only saying you should avoid using modern things needlessly. I agree with that idea. However, I don't think it applies in this case. The point of using modern bash syntax is that it fixed the brittleness and pitfalls of posix sh. This is significant. This is what I need in production. This is why our style guides insist on modern bash syntax for bash scripting. I'd say the rest of your suggestions apply to shell scripts no matter what syntax is used.