Message-ID: <638e69a3@news.ausics.net> From: not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) Subject: Re: Bashing Bash Just a Bit Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc References: <20221129020246@news.eternal-september.org> <20221129201048@news.eternal-september.org> <6388581c@news.ausics.net> <3ZidnaE4DqPpHBT-nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@earthlink.com> <638a6c52@news.ausics.net> User-Agent: tin/2.0.1-20111224 ("Achenvoir") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.31 (i586)) NNTP-Posting-Host: news.ausics.net Date: 6 Dec 2022 07:59:00 +1000 Organization: Ausics - https://www.ausics.net Lines: 51 X-Complaints: abuse@ausics.net Path: csiph.com!news.bbs.nz!news.ausics.net!not-for-mail Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:36389 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote: > On 12/2/22 4:21 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote: >>> On 12/1/22 2:30 AM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: >>>> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If you have to do major research/experiments to kinda >>>>> make it work in Bash then you shouldn't use Bash for >>>>> whatever. >>>> >>>> Ohh where's all the fun in that? >>> >>> >>> To a point I very much understand ... but some of us >>> do this for a LIVING ..... the boss expects working >>> product within a certain timeframe ............ >>> >>> Linux/Unix are hard-working systems ... the backbone >>> of pretty much everything. My job is to put it to work. >> >> Yes well that's where I'd point out the long-term compatibility >> issues with Python, as indeed I did. > > Those exist ... but tend to be very long term. Whatever > it is, you'll probably have to scrap/re-write it by > then anyway. Such incompatibilities exist in every > real computer language. This is not an excuse to never > write programs in 'C' or Java or whatever - nor an > excuse to push Bash to its ridiculous incomprehensible > extremes in the name of "backwards compatibility". > > BTW, it's only "backwards compatible" so long as those > who come after you can GRASP it properly. If it's a > jumble they'll throw it in the bin immediately rather > than waste the time and start from scratch. Which is what I've done with some Python scripts. On the other hand I can pick up decades-old Bash scripts and still use them, and easily modify bits of them for my own purposes. The core issue here is purely a matter of personal preference. I could have posted a rant here a few years ago complaining about the compatibility issues with Python, and how everyone who's switched to it should "consider" going back to Bash, for example. But I didn't, because it's just my preference against theirs, and I just have to put up with less stuff published online being done with Bash scripts, and working in ten years time. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#