That's a lot of incompatibilities.
LLMs like to use the shell because it's stable and virtually unchanged for decades.
It doesn't need to worry much about versions or whether something is supported or not, it can just assume it is.
Re-implementing bash is a herculean effort. I wish good luck.
In practice it works great. I haven't seen a failed command in a while
[Disclaimer: I made the thing]
Good luck with the project! I'm sure it will get there.
pro-tip: vercel's https://agent-browser.dev/ is a great CLI for agent-based browser automation.
https://github.com/alganet/coral
busybox, bash, zsh, dash, you name it. If smells bourne, it runs. Here's the list: https://github.com/alganet/coral/blob/main/test/matrix#L50 (more than 20 years of compatibility, runs even on bash 3)
It's a great litmus test, that many have passed. Let me know when just-bash is able to run it.
Anyway, it was rethorical. I was making a point about portability. Scripts we write today run even on ancient versions, and it has been an effort kept by lots of different interpreters (not only bash).
I'm trying to give sane advice here. Re-implementing bash is a herculean task, and some "small incompatibilities" sometimes reveal themselves as deep architectural dead-ends.
> they use it because there's a lot of training material.
Now, you say:
> they are not trying to re-use existing bash code.
Can't you see how this is a contradiction?
---
I'm sorry, I can't continue like this. I want to have meaningful conversations.
I can't have a meaningful conversation with someone that doesn't fully grasp those, no matter in which language.
Also, huge waste of tokens. And the waste is not even worth it, the sandbox seems insufficient.
Again, good luck to the developers. I just don't think it's ready.