> A shell script has a very simple function: execute a number of tedious but common commands. That's it.
And why is that? What will happen to me if I write more complicated shell scripts? The functionality is there and one can write very expressive and readable programs in shell. I would definitely recommend shell for writing long programs (for example various system administration and web backend tasks which do not require complex libraries). Preferably bash since it is the most common one.
> And somehow the entire Linux ecosystem depends on it and now every distro has to ship a shell with cruft dating back to 1970
The 'somehow' has quite a simple rationale, it isn't something that should outrage you. The family of Linux-based OSes take inspiration and compatibility target in unix systems on purpose. Unix systems are primarily operated via shell.
The current standard of shell may be an old idea from 70's with some 'cruft', but what language does not have cruft? The shell has proven to be usable and worthy of continued use. The compatibility with the unix shell is a big part of the early success of GNU/Linux and majority of users need it.
> And now every shell that tries to position itself on the market has to implement the same quirks, bugs, and design flaws in order to even be considered.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
> please use python or even perl for the love of god if you're going to make a build system
OK, so you think perl and python are better for making a build system. Have you made one?