4 ms·

Is for i in 1..10 { print $i } really all that more readable than for i in {1..10}; do print $i done Like, am I taking crazy pills? They're basi

by wpm 10mo ago

Is for i in 1..10 { print $i } really all that more readable than for i in {1..10}; do print $i done Like, am I taking crazy pills? They're basically exactly the same!

piekvorst 10mo ago
Bash is an advanced beast. In Bourne, it was for i in `seq 10` do print $i done Which is pretty much readable though. The only issue is Pascal vs C syntax. As a fan of the former, I admit that the latter is more advanced: it stacks better. E.g. consider if (test -f junk) rm junk against if test -f junk; then rm junk; fi The former “avoids semicolons that Bourne requires in odd places, and the syntax characters better set off the active parts of the command.” [1] 1: Rc—The Plan 9 Shell https://9p.io/sys/doc/rc.html https://9p.io/sys/doc/rc.html
- wpm 10mo ago
  The semicolon is required only when not using new lines to split the command words, as in sleep 60; do_the_thing_that_needs_a_minute_wait It's not necessarily required in the for loop either, I tend to prefer the more compact method of putting the "do" on the same line as the for. It can be written as for i in {1..10} do print $1 done Having "done" be the signifier of the "the for loop context ends here" is 3 characters more than "}" or ")" or whatever else. "done" is more color coming off the screen with syntax-highlighting, and can be typed in two keypresses with a "d" and a "tab" in any editor from the last 30 years. It just seems like a very very inconsequential nitpick. At least Nushell doesn't pull a Python and just have "invisible space" be the end of the for-loop. One line conditionals are doable as well in the shell. test -f junk && junk or [[ -f junk ]] && junk You can even just use [ -f junk ] if double brackets is giving the yuck.
  - piekvorst 10mo ago
    In practice, the only noticeable difference I have witnessed is for (f in *.c) if (test -f $f) cc $f I can write the whole thing in a single line (which is essential in GUI and interactive contexts) and it reads well.
cassepipe 10mo ago
I have never seen the second version. Apparently it's there since bash 3.00 (2004). Maybe took inspiration from zsh who also has (or a common ancestor ?)
Qwertious 10mo ago
The former is easier to remember. You can't forget the semicolon if there isn't a semicolon to forget.
runjake 10mo ago
It depends on where you're coming from. To myself, I agree, but to a Windows native power user, the latter looks confusing. Source: Windows native colleagues.
- wpm 10mo ago
  Imagine though, if we shell-heads came over to Windows and started writing an entirely new shell to replace Powershell because we didn't want to learn Powershell. It's just so utterly bizarre to me. I guess people like what they like, and that's cool, but wanting to rip out a 40+ year old scripting environment and command line shell because it doesn't look like goddamn Ruby or Clojure or Rust or whatever is just intolerable.

by wpm 10mo ago

Is for i in 1..10 { print $i } really all that more readable than for i in {1..10}; do print $i done Like, am I taking crazy pills? They're basically exactly the same!

piekvorst 10mo ago

Bash is an advanced beast. In Bourne, it was for i in `seq 10` do print $i done Which is pretty much readable though. The only issue is Pascal vs C syntax. As a fan of the former, I admit that the latter is more advanced: it stacks better. E.g. consider if (test -f junk) rm junk against if test -f junk; then rm junk; fi The former “avoids semicolons that Bourne requires in odd places, and the syntax characters better set off the active parts of the command.” [1] 1: Rc—The Plan 9 Shell https://9p.io/sys/doc/rc.html https://9p.io/sys/doc/rc.html

wpm 10mo ago
The semicolon is required only when not using new lines to split the command words, as in sleep 60; do_the_thing_that_needs_a_minute_wait It's not necessarily required in the for loop either, I tend to prefer the more compact method of putting the "do" on the same line as the for. It can be written as for i in {1..10} do print $1 done Having "done" be the signifier of the "the for loop context ends here" is 3 characters more than "}" or ")" or whatever else. "done" is more color coming off the screen with syntax-highlighting, and can be typed in two keypresses with a "d" and a "tab" in any editor from the last 30 years. It just seems like a very very inconsequential nitpick. At least Nushell doesn't pull a Python and just have "invisible space" be the end of the for-loop. One line conditionals are doable as well in the shell. test -f junk && junk or [[ -f junk ]] && junk You can even just use [ -f junk ] if double brackets is giving the yuck.
- piekvorst 10mo ago
  In practice, the only noticeable difference I have witnessed is for (f in *.c) if (test -f $f) cc $f I can write the whole thing in a single line (which is essential in GUI and interactive contexts) and it reads well.

cassepipe 10mo ago

I have never seen the second version. Apparently it's there since bash 3.00 (2004). Maybe took inspiration from zsh who also has (or a common ancestor ?)

Qwertious 10mo ago

The former is easier to remember. You can't forget the semicolon if there isn't a semicolon to forget.

runjake 10mo ago

It depends on where you're coming from. To myself, I agree, but to a Windows native power user, the latter looks confusing. Source: Windows native colleagues.

wpm 10mo ago
Imagine though, if we shell-heads came over to Windows and started writing an entirely new shell to replace Powershell because we didn't want to learn Powershell. It's just so utterly bizarre to me. I guess people like what they like, and that's cool, but wanting to rip out a 40+ year old scripting environment and command line shell because it doesn't look like goddamn Ruby or Clojure or Rust or whatever is just intolerable.