Hacker News Reader

Comment by dyanaraps | Hacker News Reader

> Have you read Bash Pitfalls[1]?

I've read pretty much everything I could get my hands on regarding the shell (including the mentioned link) and I still love it.

> Do you write truly correct Bash/POSIX code?

If we define correct as passing shellcheck, avoiding all pitfalls and maintaining compatibility (POSIX sh not bash), then yes, I like to think so. :)

> Do you still love it?

Oh yeah! I've been writing a ton of POSIX sh as of late. My latest project being a Linux distribution: https://getkiss.org/

(hello from Firefox in KISS!)

View on HN

Wow, very impressive. Do you also believe it's a viable language with which newcomers should start writing scripts?

Edit: follow up question is Do you believe bash / POSIX shells actually follow KISS principles?

Not questioning whether your OS is KISS, but I don't think that necessarily reflects the KISS-ness of the underlying language.

My questions clearly reflect my current impression that in the long term, shell pitfalls largely undermine the benefits of its apparent simplicity. The gist would be for you to provide some way to change my mind. I guess the codebase you provide is a strong counter example; but you'll agree it doesn't reflect general usage of shell in the wild.

Edit 2: You know what, I just read your original comment again. I kind of retract my question since you do concede that it's an uphill battle and you love it in spite of its flaws. I guess that's cool (and I agree it's fun trying to write correct bash as a challenge) as long as you're in control of the code being produced, but my main impression remains that it's a bad language to publicize and its presence in most codebases inherently bears a strong cost.

> Do you believe bash / POSIX shells actually follow KISS principles?

POSIX `sh` yes. `bash` less so but I'd still lean more towards a yes.

Ultimately though, it depends on how we define "simple". Both `bash` (2.6MB) and POSIX `sh` shells (`dash` (232KB), `ash` (1.2MB (busybox)), etc) are tiny in size if we compare them to Python (137MB) or Perl (44MB).

(Numbers taken from my system using `du` on each file which belongs to each shell/language.)

If we define "simple" to language features then I think the shells come out on top again (especially POSIX `sh`).

If we define "simple" as ease of use (without shooting yourself in the foot) then I'd agree with you and say that the shell loses here.

There's a time and place for using any tool (in production) but I find it fun to push the shell beyond what is thought possible in my personal projects. :)

Shell scripts also win "simple" in ease of deployment. (well assuming the author has paid attention to platform differences)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com