3 ms·
The simplest thing you can do should be the correct thing to do. It is impossible to do this 100% in a programming language, absolutely. But shell violates th
by jerf 4y ago
The simplest thing you can do should be the correct thing to do.
It is impossible to do this 100% in a programming language, absolutely.
But shell violates this all over the place for programming purposes. And it's not like "read the bash man page" has a nice clear "hey, here's the way to write bash as a safer programming language".
I like bash as an interactive shell. Don't love it but like it enough to not go looking around for "better". As a programming language it's not great. It's convenient, but in terms of discussing which is a bigger minefield of problems, C or bash, I'm not sure. C is worse in practical impact because more people put it on the network, but bash is right up there in how much like walking through a minefield it is. I still use it but I definitely have it linted through shellcheck to do anything serious, and shellcheck always has things to say.
(And yes, bash is far from the only programming language to have this problem.)
- ElectricalUnion 4y ago> C is worse in practical impact because more people put it on the network Unfortunately the one thing that I learned in the whole Shellshock Vulnerability thing is that a surprising number of things [still?] runs on shell/GCI.