Pure Bash Bible (2018)
github.com
Pure Bash Bible (2018)
1–10 of 106 posts
Re: Pure Bash Bible (2018)
#2Previous discussions:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30363506 (291 points | Feb 16, 2022 | 96 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21013150 (746 points | Sept 19, 2019 | 248 comments)
See also: Pure Sh Bible https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35765707 (406 points | 3 months ago | 133 comments)
Re: Pure Bash Bible (2018)
#3dash is significantly faster than bash and lighter weight, too. I added tab completion and use dash as interactive shell as well as scripting shell.
Re: Pure Bash Bible (2018)
#4dash is significantly faster than bash and lighter weight, too. I added tab completion and use dash as interactive shell as well as scripting shell.
The same amazing guy also published the Pure sh Bible:
https://github.com/dylanaraps/pure-sh-bible
Re: Pure Bash Bible (2018)
#5Less critical then yesterday because of ChatGPT, I always expected to become fluent in bash at some point, but the AI became too good at writing my scripts now...
Also you can use the chat as a learning tool, it's really a game changer for whom want to really learn it.
Re: Pure Bash Bible (2018)
#6dash is significantly faster than bash and lighter weight, too. I added tab completion and use dash as interactive shell as well as scripting shell.
The same amazing guy also published the Pure sh Bible: https://github.com/dylanaraps/pure-sh-bible
That's not dash, it's bash in POSIX compatibility mode. dash does not implement all the POSIX stuff in this "bible".
Imagine using this "bible" to write a "pure sh" script thinking "this will be highly portable", only to have it fail because the Linux scripting shell is not bash in POSIX compatibility mode, it's dash. It would fail on NetBSD, too, whose scripting shell is the version of ash from which dash is derived.
Re: Pure Bash Bible (2018)
#7Less critical then yesterday because of ChatGPT, I always expected to become fluent in bash at some point, but the AI became too good at writing my scripts now... Also you can use the chat as a learning tool, it's really a game changer for whom want to really learn it.
as someone who is late to this party, can you tell me how you are using it? In an IDE? what sort of way are you using it to learn rather than just give answers? thx.
Re: Pure Bash Bible (2018)
#8Less critical then yesterday because of ChatGPT, I always expected to become fluent in bash at some point, but the AI became too good at writing my scripts now... Also you can use the chat as a learning tool, it's really a game changer for whom want to really learn it.
as someone who is late to this party, can you tell me how you are using it? In an IDE? what sort of way are you using it to learn rather than just give answers? thx.
Just use the website. You can explain (in english or even native language if relevant) your algorithm and for small functions it's giving you correct answer. You still need to concatenate them.
For learning in my case I needed to learn python and I'm already expert in javascript for example. So you can ask the prompt for the equivalent in python every time you feel stuck. But using the chat is so more precise and quick, than google for this kind of questions. Also without all the noise of google. In particular without this "noise" and time and concentration to find the response, it's a game changer when you really want to just learn and memorize.
Re: Pure Bash Bible (2018)
#9I bought it just few days ago find it helpful but also i wish there was more context / explanation around some black magic syntax
Re: Pure Bash Bible (2018)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same amazing guy also published the Pure sh Bible: https://github.com/dylanaraps/pure-sh-bible
That's not dash, it's bash in POSIX compatibility mode. dash does not implement all the POSIX stuff in this "bible". Imagine using this "bible" to write a "pure sh" script thinking "this will be highly portable", only to have it fail because the Linux scripting shell is not bash in POSIX compatibility mode, it's dash. It would fail on NetBSD, too, whose scripting shell is the version of ash from which dash is derived…
Do people actually symlink /bin/dash to /bin/sh? That would be extremely stupid.