Re: [dev] [question] Does bash suck?

From: Marc Collin <marc.collin7_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 10:19:14 -0300

So bash is not portable because of bashisms, bloated and slow?
Any of those 3 things could be a set-off, but all 3 at once makes me
agree that bash sucks.
#!/bin/sh should be good.

stali recommends loksh and mksh so I should try those.
They're equally good?

On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Mattias Andrée <maandree_AT_kth.se> wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 10:03:29 -0300
> Marc Collin <marc.collin7_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>> Recently a user from suckless told me that bash sucks,
>> but before I could ask why he went offline.
>> I tried looking at suckless.org page about software that
>> sucks, but couldn't find anything about bash.
>> I can imagine why it sucks - no portability! #/bin/sh
>> should be enough for everyone. Is that it or is something
>> else to the matter? Maybe an entry to suckless.org suck
>> page could be good to clarify things and also warn new
>> users. Best wishes.
>>
>
> To quote Bash's man page: it's too big and too slow.
> I would also prefer if Bash did not implement a bunch
> of built-in commands that is already found in the
> system base. The only command that requires a built-in
> version is test, because it implements a few flags
> that requires that it is implemented in the shell.
> And sadly, Bash's test is very buggy and is incompatible
> with GNU coreutils's test.
> I do not think it is an issue that it implements more
> stuff than sh, some of these features are really useful.
Received on Sat Apr 23 2016 - 15:19:14 CEST