4 ms·
It would certainly be nice, but I wouldn’t call that the easy route. Creating a new shell that’s fully backwards compatible with the monstrosity that is Bash so
by maddyboo 6y ago
It would certainly be nice, but I wouldn’t call that the easy route. Creating a new shell that’s fully backwards compatible with the monstrosity that is Bash sounds like a massive undertaking. POSIX or the Bourne shell is probably an easier target, and there are numerous alternative shells that are POSIX-compatible and add nice new features or optional alternate syntaxes. But I agree, to properly dethrone Bash would probably require backwards compatibility with it.
- hnlmorg 6y agoPersonally I don't see the point dethroning bash. I mean Bash still hasn't completely dethroned the Bourne shell. And now there is a lot more competition in shells than there ever was. Personally I think the better approach is to accept that bash/sh will always be about for legacy stuff and for alternative shells to carve out a niche elsewhere. Particularly because to some of bash/sh's pain points can't be addressed without break compatibility in the first place (like handling file names with spaces).