Organiser of the Edinburgh Language Exchange and The Edinburgh Open Tech Scene |
Full Snack Developer 🥪, Ramen guzzler 🍜, quiche murderer 🥧. A friendly cat.
I'm sure there are many people that are amazing at writing bash scripts
No there are only a handful :-D (I'm only half kidding)
Also my biggest petpeave bash sed and awk are not compatible between Linux, mac and likely bad variants.
My biggest gripe with shell scripting is the tooling dependency.
I used to quip "in bash, ANY language is your library!". The obverse of course is true: any tool can subsume any other in any given environment, and you won;t know til your script crashes.
macOS uses the BSD Utils by default, as do the BSDs in general ; Fedora uses GNU Coreutils, except when they use a BSD adaptation ; Ubuntu is GNU Coreutils most of the time; Alpine uses BusyBox (a great tool in and of itself, but a thorn for cross-platform shell scripting) ; ...
it's just limited. It makes it harder to write tests and follow most coding patterns.
Granted there are tools like this: github.com/sstephenson/bats but not sure if anyone uses them. Also.. Libraries!! How many times do we need to re-write the same fix to the same problem.
macOS uses the BSD Utils by default, as do the BSDs in general ; Fedora uses GNU Coreutils,
except when they use a BSD adaptation ; Ubuntu is GNU Coreutils most of the time; Alpine uses
BusyBox (a great tool in and of itself, but a thorn for cross-platform shell scripting) ; ...
So.. you're saying that it's a very repeatable and consistent ecosystem? O.o
Yeah that's part of the issue. It's easy, it's everywhere just run bash foobar.sh, except when it doesn't work and you have to write 7 versions to support all the various edge cases.
It's not as easy to write, but I'm really liking go. It's way more complicated and verbose than bash, but at the end of the day i end up with 1 file to copy around.
Organiser of the Edinburgh Language Exchange and The Edinburgh Open Tech Scene |
Full Snack Developer 🥪, Ramen guzzler 🍜, quiche murderer 🥧. A friendly cat.
No there are only a handful :-D (I'm only half kidding)
My biggest gripe with shell scripting is the tooling dependency.
I used to quip "in bash, ANY language is your library!". The obverse of course is true: any tool can subsume any other in any given environment, and you won;t know til your script crashes.
macOS uses the BSD Utils by default, as do the BSDs in general ; Fedora uses GNU Coreutils, except when they use a BSD adaptation ; Ubuntu is GNU Coreutils most of the time; Alpine uses BusyBox (a great tool in and of itself, but a thorn for cross-platform shell scripting) ; ...
it's just limited. It makes it harder to write tests and follow most coding patterns.
Granted there are tools like this: github.com/sstephenson/bats but not sure if anyone uses them. Also.. Libraries!! How many times do we need to re-write the same fix to the same problem.
So.. you're saying that it's a very repeatable and consistent ecosystem? O.o
Yeah that's part of the issue. It's easy, it's everywhere just run bash foobar.sh, except when it doesn't work and you have to write 7 versions to support all the various edge cases.
It's not as easy to write, but I'm really liking go. It's way more complicated and verbose than bash, but at the end of the day i end up with 1 file to copy around.
Yeah libraires... is why I started my bash-builder project and its sibling bash-libs. Build the script and have... a single file to copy around ;-)
The backbone of most of my bash scripting nowadays...