> Semantics. No. It's not semantics... > Nobody uses bash without those Boy you are so wrong... Of course many do. And those are the people who care the mo

> Semantics. No. It's not semantics... > Nobody uses bash without those Boy you are so wrong... Of course many do. And those are the people who care the most about what shell can do and how it does it. People you describe are the people who need shell for other reasons, who could probably do away with Perl / Python / Ruby etc. instead. I don't care about that audience. Actually, it would be probably even better if Shell isn't used there at all. Shell has way too many restrictions for that context. > You keep saying that without any evidence whatsoever. Please, read again. I listed the problems earlier: identity (comparison), serialization, methods overload, mutable state, dependency through hierarchies s.a. inheritance. I don't want any of that in a shell, because, someone will definitely use it, and in the most unnecessary place, and it will throw a wrench into the Rube Goldberg machine of Linux shell scripting that's falling apart in many hilarious ways as it is. > It looks to me that you dont actually have programming background Look. An expert! You just discovered my programming backround (or lack of it) by reading a post on the Internet. How quaint! > Your bash scripts the way you described them would probably be heavily reviewed and massaged where I work, for them to be accepted. Lol. You sound like a Web developer with 5 years of experience, who decided that they've seen it all by now, and got a title of "senior developer" which made them feel important and overly confident. Nope. You aren't there yet. The road ahead is long and bumpy. You better curb your enthusiasm of judging others for a while.