2 ms·
It's archaic if you're a dabbler, a hobbyist, an academic, or a junior dev who lacks the experience of shipping software into the wild. For the rest of us, we
by bregma 3y ago
It's archaic if you're a dabbler, a hobbyist, an academic, or a junior dev who lacks the experience of shipping software into the wild.
For the rest of us, we have learned the hard way, sometime repeatedly, portability and adherence to published standards matters.
- shmerl 3y agoThat doesn't make it less archaic if anything today still has this problem.
- usrbinbash 3y agoWell, I am a professional who administrates quite a lot of systems. And they all run bash. They all understand `[[`, they all understand `~=` If any of them did not, then I'd ensure they do. Yes, shells that do not support modern bash syntax ARE archaic, no matter who sits in front of the screen. And same as I consider it part of my job description to keep systems up to date with security patches, I consider it part of my job to ensure they use modern versions of contemporary and widely used scripting languages and shells. And that includes bash. So no, relying on features that can be expected on a modern system is not a sign of inexperience. Same as a dev is within his rights to not write his python code under the assumption that it has to talk with a python 3.4 interpreter, he is within his rights to not expect a system that only knows sh.