12 ms·
So I read this with a great deal of interest and nodded my head say “yes, that’s true” at most of it. Despite this I just do not want to switch. Heck, first thi
by myrandomcomment 5y ago
So I read this with a great deal of interest and nodded my head say “yes, that’s true” at most of it. Despite this I just do not want to switch. Heck, first thing I do when I get a new Mac (now that ash is the default)is switch my shell to bash, install homebrew, then tmux, vim, powerline and git pull my dot files. I think maybe I am just old. Get off my lawn!
I am really working on not writing every little thing I want to script as a shell script. The other day I wanted to scan a dir of ~10k image files and move anything that was corrupt to another dir. I wrote it in bash and it worked. Then I was like, okay you should write this in python because you want to run it on 4 different OS. So I did. The code looks so much cleaner but was half as fast as the shell script. Oh well.
- nickthemagicman 5y agoI agree. There's perfectly good scripting languages if I need to do anything beyond bash.
- revscat 5y agoAlso agree. For me, I want to be able to do simple "for each file run this command" loops in the shell. But if those loops get much more complicated than that then I switch over to Ruby.
- nickthemagicman 5y ago*Tilt whisky glass your way. "Bravo sir."
- i2shar 5y agoThis is me as well - unabashedly a bash person. My reasons to not switch are not driven by the feature set offered by the various shells, but by the fact that I don't want to learn/think or be bothered with the nuances when I log in to various remote hosts, containers, and what have you. When I write shell scripts or installers, I want a single language that is reasonably likely to be present wherever it runs - and that today is bash.
- jamesfinlayson 5y agoAgreed - people have told me that other shells are better (and I'm sure they are better than bash in some ways) but for a shell, ubiquity is arguably the most important feature.