20 ms·

> .bash is ugly "Ugly" is subjective. If I encountered a file with that extension, I'd assume it uses Bash-specific features and that I shouldn't run this scr

> .bash is ugly "Ugly" is subjective. If I encountered a file with that extension, I'd assume it uses Bash-specific features and that I shouldn't run this script with another shell.

Octabrain 4y ago
Subjetive, indeed. But unless I am missing something, the interpreter to be used should be determined by the shebang within the script though?
- selectnull 4y ago
  Extension or not, .sh or .bash: definitely subjective. That was the intention of my comment. Because the rest of the post (or most of it for sure) is not subjective.
- erlkonig 4y ago
  It's the effect of the extension on USER behavior that's the problem, the OS doesn't care.
  - Octabrain 4y ago
    Yes, I get it. But in my case I simply give u+x permissions to the script and then run "./script.sh" and then the script will be executed with the interpreter defined in the shebang.
ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
The hashbang already specifies the shell, so also having it in the extension seems unnecessary. I don't like using '.sh' as an extension as it differs from other OS commands and I can't think where it's actually helpful.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  If you download a script then running "sh script.sh" is a lot quicker and easier than a chmod followed by ./script.sh. You can of course also type "bash script.sh", but I don't always have it installed on every system, and the .bash extension just clarifies it. For things in my PATH I drop any suffixes like that.
  - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
    I see your point, but you can just as easily run "sh script" although that does imply that you already know that it's a shell script (obviously you wouldn't just run something from the internet without checking it first).
    - jraph 4y ago
      > obviously you wouldn't just run something from the internet without checking it first This died a long time ago with the pervasive use of NPM and PIP and the likes. Most developers probably run a lot of random unchecked shit all the time with local user privileges today without a blink. Somehow people are ready for all this, but are still afraid to run a random shell script from the internet. I guess this fear is one of our chances to explain how NPM and PIP can be dangerous.
      - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
        It's also fairly common to use a docker container that someone else built without having a look at it
        hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
        I don't know. I do that a lot on test servers when tinkering with new stuff but at work I'm very careful what I insert into my employer's infrastructure. If someone breaks in using a hole I should have taken care of, that's already bad. But if invite bad guys by installing a C&C for them, that's superbad.
      - krageon 4y ago

> .bash is ugly "Ugly" is subjective. If I encountered a file with that extension, I'd assume it uses Bash-specific features and that I shouldn't run this script with another shell.

Octabrain 4y ago

Subjetive, indeed. But unless I am missing something, the interpreter to be used should be determined by the shebang within the script though?

selectnull 4y ago
Extension or not, .sh or .bash: definitely subjective. That was the intention of my comment. Because the rest of the post (or most of it for sure) is not subjective.
erlkonig 4y ago
It's the effect of the extension on USER behavior that's the problem, the OS doesn't care.
- Octabrain 4y ago
  Yes, I get it. But in my case I simply give u+x permissions to the script and then run "./script.sh" and then the script will be executed with the interpreter defined in the shebang.

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago

The hashbang already specifies the shell, so also having it in the extension seems unnecessary. I don't like using '.sh' as an extension as it differs from other OS commands and I can't think where it's actually helpful.

Beltalowda 4y ago
If you download a script then running "sh script.sh" is a lot quicker and easier than a chmod followed by ./script.sh. You can of course also type "bash script.sh", but I don't always have it installed on every system, and the .bash extension just clarifies it. For things in my PATH I drop any suffixes like that.
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  I see your point, but you can just as easily run "sh script" although that does imply that you already know that it's a shell script (obviously you wouldn't just run something from the internet without checking it first).
  - jraph 4y ago
    > obviously you wouldn't just run something from the internet without checking it first This died a long time ago with the pervasive use of NPM and PIP and the likes. Most developers probably run a lot of random unchecked shit all the time with local user privileges today without a blink. Somehow people are ready for all this, but are still afraid to run a random shell script from the internet. I guess this fear is one of our chances to explain how NPM and PIP can be dangerous.
    - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
      It's also fairly common to use a docker container that someone else built without having a look at it
      - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
        I don't know. I do that a lot on test servers when tinkering with new stuff but at work I'm very careful what I insert into my employer's infrastructure. If someone breaks in using a hole I should have taken care of, that's already bad. But if invite bad guys by installing a C&C for them, that's superbad.
    - krageon 4y ago