3 ms·
I agree, but some bash can be unavoidable. I've found that even trivial looking bash can be helped with shell-check; this is a testament to the issues in bash m
by dimitar 3y ago
I agree, but some bash can be unavoidable. I've found that even trivial looking bash can be helped with shell-check; this is a testament to the issues in bash more than anything.
- jzwinck 3y agoWhat bash is unavoidable? The aliases and functions you define in your personal shell, sure. But what else?
- auselen 3y agoPiping stuff, job control?
- dimitar 3y agoSome examples of possible exceptions: * Installing or starting your general-purpose runtime, passing the right configuration options * Project glue where introducing general purpose language makes things more complicated because of tooling or startup. * Simple cloud-init scripts * A command line tool is simply the best library for the job and you don't want to get a general purpose language just to immediately shell out.
- jjgreen 3y agoEasy to avoid, use POSIX sh. It is a truth universally acknowledged that 95% of bash scripts don't use any non-Bourne features (or can trivially be modified to be so).
- BaculumMeumEst 3y agoWhat on earth? POSIX sh is far more annoying to deal with than Bash. The only reason anyone puts up with it is to target the lowest common denominator. Horrible advice.