3 ms·
Bash seems to be about as archaic as sh. I write my shell scripts in sh, because it comes with every unix-like os by default. I know that bash has more featur
by mikem170 3y ago
Bash seems to be about as archaic as sh.
I write my shell scripts in sh, because it comes with every unix-like os by default.
I know that bash has more features, but I've never really missed them. I switch from sh to perl for more complicated tasks.
To each their own, right?
- 15457345234 3y agoThis to me seems like good practice, it's better to use a 'real' programming language when you're crossing the boundary from 'script' to 'program' Shellscript has way too many idiosyncracies and weirdnesses that would have been beaten out of a proper programming language by now. (I know that talking about weirdnesses is amusing in relation to perl which also has a whole armload of them.)
- hnbad 3y ago> This to me seems like good practice, it's better to use a 'real' programming language when you're crossing the boundary from 'script' to 'program' PowerShell would like a word with you.
- account42 3y agoPowerShell's problem is that it is a real programming language, which makes it less suitable for a shell.
- hnbad 3y agoI was half-joking but the downvotes were to be expected in a conversation about Linux shells.
- usrbinbash 3y agoNo, power shells problem is that it cannot decide whether it's a programming language or a shell REPL, and ends up doing both badly. The syntax is too cryptic (and far too verbose) for a REPL, and too "shell-y" for a PL. bash, for all its many many many flaws, is quite clearly a REPL first, PL second.
- 15457345234 3y agoThe PowerShell syntax, to me, is one of the most unbelievably cryptic things I've ever seen. I really can't get on with it at all.