Can anyone recommend something similar for Make?
Pure Bash Bible
131–140 of 258 posts
Re: Pure Bash Bible
#132I have inherited about 4K LOC Bash, which mostly works as advertised. No one wants to touch it! suggestions ?
Skim https://learnxinyminutes.com/docs/bash/ Then open the code and just go through it. Check everything you find unfamiliar with that cheat sheet. If it doesn't cover something in your code, write it down to research separately later.
Re: Pure Bash Bible
#133Hello, I'm the author of the Pure Bash Bible. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Here's an example of what bash is capable of: https://github.com/dylanaraps/fff/ (a TUI file manager written in bash)!
Any plans to sell the book in dead tree format?
Re: Pure Bash Bible
#134Hello, I'm the author of the Pure Bash Bible. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Here's an example of what bash is capable of: https://github.com/dylanaraps/fff/ (a TUI file manager written in bash)!
fff looks amazing. I’ve started building something like it many times, but never finished. Thank you
Thanks :)
Re: Pure Bash Bible
#135I have moved to Crystal Lang for the times when i need the speed that ruby can't offer. I could have leveled up my bash skills, and was indeed using bash for that porpoise, but crystal is easier i think.
Re: Pure Bash Bible
#136Hello, I'm the author of the Pure Bash Bible. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Here's an example of what bash is capable of: https://github.com/dylanaraps/fff/ (a TUI file manager written in bash)!
Any plans to sell the book in dead tree format?
That'd be really nice and it is something I've thought about, the issue is figuring out the _right_ way to do it. Self publishing or perhaps a publisher of programming books?
I can see now that there's a clear interest in a release in physical form. I'll start seriously looking into it. :)
Re: Pure Bash Bible
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you seem to be unfamiliar with bash doesn’t mean it’s unreadable. Almost any language will look cryptic if you don’t know it. That function is mostly just parameter expansion and very common in most bash scripts. I bet if you read the manual you would easily be able to figure it out. You just have to learn the language.
I'm with jmnicolas on this. I've been using bash on and off for years now (approaching decades). I still get it very wrong almost always. It's the only language where this is a persistent problem for me. Just yesterday I was struck by the difference between if [[ ]]; and if [ ]; I didn't even bother grokking the difference in the end. I simply found something that worked and moved on with my day.
Single square bracket conditionals [] are the "older" (POSIX) version but do not have certain features that we would like to use in our shell scripts. Bash uses double square brackets to extend the functionality.
This is my understanding. Possibly not 100% correct but essentially correct enough for me to understand the reason/rationale for the difference.
Re: Pure Bash Bible
#138I have inherited about 4K LOC Bash, which mostly works as advertised. No one wants to touch it! suggestions ?
Assuming it's all in one file I would move related pieces of functionality into separate files and and then source them when necessary. Should make things more manageable for people only wanting to make small changes.
no, its 27 directories and 947 files, with a plugin architecture (pipeline)
Re: Pure Bash Bible
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you seem to be unfamiliar with bash doesn’t mean it’s unreadable. Almost any language will look cryptic if you don’t know it. That function is mostly just parameter expansion and very common in most bash scripts. I bet if you read the manual you would easily be able to figure it out. You just have to learn the language.
I'm with jmnicolas on this. I've been using bash on and off for years now (approaching decades). I still get it very wrong almost always. It's the only language where this is a persistent problem for me. Just yesterday I was struck by the difference between if [[ ]]; and if [ ]; I didn't even bother grokking the difference in the end. I simply found something that worked and moved on with my day.
I'm in no way defending bash as a language. There are lots of gotchas and weird constructs. I avoid bash too. It's just that trim function isn't that cryptic or "unreadable" if you know the syntax.
Re: Pure Bash Bible
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm with jmnicolas on this. I've been using bash on and off for years now (approaching decades). I still get it very wrong almost always. It's the only language where this is a persistent problem for me. Just yesterday I was struck by the difference between if [[ ]]; and if [ ]; I didn't even bother grokking the difference in the end. I simply found something that worked and moved on with my day.
I'm in no way defending bash as a language. There are lots of gotchas and weird constructs. I avoid bash too. It's just that trim function isn't that cryptic or "unreadable" if you know the syntax.
I think the point is that it takes a lot longer pick the syntax up compared to some if/then/for/loop version of trim even if that would be way more verbose.