4 ms·
Sure, but why is that an interesting goal? Historically, bash has had very good backwards compatibility, and it’s unlikely that you need new features anyway.
by mananaysiempre 2y ago
Sure, but why is that an interesting goal? Historically, bash has had very good backwards compatibility, and it’s unlikely that you need new features anyway.
- notnmeyer 2y agoyou can write bash but run the scripts on systems that may not have bash, is my first thought. packaging “shell” scripts into a scratch container or similar sounds pretty nice for certain use cases.
- adamc 2y agoIf that's all you want, is compiling it all into go really better than just having a portable bash?
- hnlmorg 2y agoI have authored a shell in Go and while it doesn’t aim to replace coreutils, it does have a decent number of builtins as part of its application. So in theory I could build a feature that allows you to ship a self contained executable like you’ve described. If this is something you’re genuinely interested in and my shell has the right kind of ergonomics for you, then feel free to leave a feature request: https://github.com/lmorg/murex https://github.com/lmorg/murex