Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bash 5.0 released

lists.gnu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 306 posts

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#131

Post by aexaey »

_kst_ wrote: post #84

With this release, bash now has three built-in variables (um, I mean "parameters") whose values are updated every time they're read: $RANDOM yields a random integer in the range 0..32767. (This feature was already there.) $EPOCHSECONDS yields the whole number of seconds since the epoch. $EPOCHREALTIME yields the number of seconds since the epoch with microsecond precision. I'm thinking of a new shell feature that wou…

How does function sound for a syntactic sugar?

  $ today() { date +%F; }
  $ echo Today, $(today) is a great day!
  Today, 2019-01-08 is a great day!

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#133

Post by h1d »

a012 wrote: post #93
PopsiclePete wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank the GPL v3 for that one. Same reason GCC is frozen at 4.2.1 on mac. I switched to zsh, personally - the one Apple ship is pretty current. macOS is still a pretty solid developer machine.

Some application still requires bash, like wireguard

What's the problem running it on a 10 year old bash?

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#134

Post by h1d »

fxfan wrote: post #31

As someone who lives in zsh and bash for interactive usage- I want to say- please do not write scripts in bash or zsh. Use powershell- its an amazingly well designed scripting language. Also- there is ammonite. Written for scripting.

What kind of advice is that? Powershell script is so far off from bash/zsh, there's no good reason to convert everyone. Last time I tried writing Powershell script, it was so verbose and cryptic it wasn't funny.

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#135

Post by ajross »

int_19h wrote: post #117
ajross wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so the risk can't be quantified and the whole thing is just isomorphic "because I don't like it". Which was as true then as it is now. It's not about license terms, it's about what amounts to politics.

Experimenting is not the only way to quantify risk. You can also e.g. have several highly paid lawyers look over the text of the license, and see what each of them had to say. The big players in the industry did just that, and there appears to be a remarkable consensus on it.

The remarkable consensus behind IBM's purchase of Red Hat, you mean? Seems like their highly paid lawyers were down with it.

Again, it's just stunning the extent to which this FUD hasn't changed at all over a quarter century.

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#136

Post by SllX »

chrisseaton wrote: post #25
mishac wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The full manual is here. https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/bashref.html GNU projects tend have info pages that are a lot more complete and thorough then their man pages, so that'd be a good place to check too.

> GNU projects tend have info pages that are a lot more complete and thorough then their man pages Why is that? Why don’t they build both from a single source?

Historical difference in style and preferences. GNU’s Not UNIX and all that Jazz, so they have different conventions, some of which would not translate to a man page that well. Plus Texinfo is a tool for generating multiple output formats from a single source.

Typically (unless this changed at some point) the info pages are the canonical reference for GNU projects and the man pages are to accommodate Unix hackers.[1]

[1] https://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html#Man-Pages

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#137

Post by darkpuma »

petre wrote: post #96
pornel wrote: post #32

Reminder that 2019 version of macOS ships with 2007 (last GPL2) version of Bash, and will never ship with any newer version. /bin/bash --version GNU bash, version 3.2.57(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin18) Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. macOS used to be an awesome developer machine with good tools out of the box. Now the built-in tools are just a bootstrap for their own replacement via Homebrew. Lik…

It also ships a recent version if zsh. But I agree, you're better off with Linux if you want a developer box and deploy on Linux.

> It also ships a recent version if zsh.

Recent compared to bash maybe. 10.14's zsh is two years old.

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#138

Post by darkpuma »

gnulinux wrote: post #121
int_19h wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can write my code in bash and forget about it. In practice, this approach often results in code that works only on Linux, or on Linux and macOS. I especially hate it when people shove #!/bin/bash as a shebang, and doubly so when it's in scripts that are a part of some npm package. (On BSDs, Bash is not installed out of the box, and when it is installed, it's not in /bin, since it's not in the base system.) Still,…

I think this is a good point but, there is an implicit but well known notion that if you write bash and care about platform coverage, you just write bourne shell. I didn't explicitly write it, but I assumed I would write bourne shell, and whatever shell in random Unix will be able to handle it as well as bash in linux||macOS. As a python lover, I simply can't find one reason to use any other scripting language other…

    #!/bin/sh
Leave bash out of it tbh. In practice that will often end up being bash, but sometimes it won't be an in those cases you'll have yourself covered. Test it with busybox's sh or with dash, just to make sure.

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#139

Post by Alupis »

int_19h wrote: post #118
gnulinux wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percent of Unices come with Powershell today? I can write my code in bash and forget about it. Or if I'm supporting less systems (most linux + macOS + most modern Unices) I can write my code in perl or python. Powershell? Thanks but no thanks.

> I can write my code in bash and forget about it. In practice, this approach often results in code that works only on Linux, or on Linux and macOS. I especially hate it when people shove #!/bin/bash as a shebang, and doubly so when it's in scripts that are a part of some npm package. (On BSDs, Bash is not installed out of the box, and when it is installed, it's not in /bin, since it's not in the base system.) Still,…

> I especially hate it when people shove #!/bin/bash as a shebang

It really ought to be `#!/usr/bin/env bash` , if you're writing a bash script. That'll solve the location problem.

Otherwise, if it's a bash script, you can't get around needing bash on your system (although a great many bash scripts are actually "sh" shell scripts that just happen to specify bash because people are used to that sort of thing).

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#140

Post by flukus »

aexaey wrote: post #131
_kst_ wrote: post #84

With this release, bash now has three built-in variables (um, I mean "parameters") whose values are updated every time they're read: $RANDOM yields a random integer in the range 0..32767. (This feature was already there.) $EPOCHSECONDS yields the whole number of seconds since the epoch. $EPOCHREALTIME yields the number of seconds since the epoch with microsecond precision. I'm thinking of a new shell feature that wou…

How does function sound for a syntactic sugar? $ today() { date +%F; } $ echo Today, $(today) is a great day! Today, 2019-01-08 is a great day!

It's not as nice, "cat $today" is easier to type than "cat $(today)" and would give better completion, just declared matching variables instead of matching functions, files and executables.

On the plus side, TIL the subshell syntax plays well with eval/expand shortcut (ctrl+alt+e).

Post reply on HN