One can made arguments both for and against `set -e`. Over may carrier I've seen many shell scripts: The most common case is no `-e` and no explicit error/sta

One can made arguments both for and against `set -e`. Over may carrier I've seen many shell scripts: The most common case is no `-e` and no explicit error/status checks for most commands. It's unreliable and such scripts is one of reasons why shell got it's bad reputation (and criticized by coders using languages where an unhanded exception would terminate a program). In my own scripts I often use `-e` (but not always as it is a tradeoff). If you unfamiliar with shell `-e` also could cause problems. But `-e` is not magic which makes a script better, one have to know how it works. The option author of this article advocates (no `-e` but explicitly check every command which could fail) is the least common IMHO. Unless the scripts calls just 1-2 commands it's tedious and the resulting script is harder to read. May be you can find such style in some opensource projects but I've never seen such scripts at work.