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

231–240 of 306 posts

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#231

Post by maxfurman »

wicket wrote: post #226

Seeing this release makes me cringe. I've used Bash as an interactive shell for decades but really I'm sick and tired of it. As a scripting language, I loathe it and really don't understand its purpose. I always write shell scripts in POSIX shell for portability reasons. Most of the time I don't need to use any of Bash's features. In cases where advanced features are needed and portability is not a concern, there are…

I've used fish for a few years now and am a big fan. I'm not sure if it meets your definition of lightweight but tab completion works very well out of the box.

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#232

Post by ilikepi »

Crestwave wrote: post #218
ilikepi wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I just don't bother trying to show the user their particular invocation: #!/bin/bash echo "Usage: $(basename $0) [OPTIONS]"

Minor nitpick, but wouldn't ${0##*/} work as well?

Yep! Not a nitpick at all. There's more than one way to do lots of things.

I prefer my version because it's easier for me to remember and read. I do use pattern substitution for other things, but I usually have to go to an interactive shell and create a test variable in order to remind myself whether I want # or %. I understand favoring built-in features over subshell calls for heavily used code, but I don't think this is especially critical for outputting usage info.

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#233

Post by AegisCZ »

manquer wrote: post #229
wicket wrote: post #226

Seeing this release makes me cringe. I've used Bash as an interactive shell for decades but really I'm sick and tired of it. As a scripting language, I loathe it and really don't understand its purpose. I always write shell scripts in POSIX shell for portability reasons. Most of the time I don't need to use any of Bash's features. In cases where advanced features are needed and portability is not a concern, there are…

zsh has much better tab completion, you should check it out

Even more bloated

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#234

Post by forty »

hawski wrote: post #162
flukus wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Wouldn't "cat $today" result with "cat: No such file or directory: 2019-01-08"? Did you mean echo instead of cat?

Only in the case when no such file exists in the current directory :)

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#235

Post by liveoneggs »

wicket wrote: post #226

Seeing this release makes me cringe. I've used Bash as an interactive shell for decades but really I'm sick and tired of it. As a scripting language, I loathe it and really don't understand its purpose. I always write shell scripts in POSIX shell for portability reasons. Most of the time I don't need to use any of Bash's features. In cases where advanced features are needed and portability is not a concern, there are…

ksh

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#236

Post by tjoff »

majewsky wrote: post #169
tjoff wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely the user already knows how to invoke the program, since he/she did it literally two seconds ago. What if I invoke it from a distant path, do I want my 73 character long path to be prepended in the --help ?

Especially on something like NixOS, where /bin/bash is actually /nix/store/3508wrguwrgu3h5y9354rhfgw056y-bash-5.0/bin/bash.

If you run --help you already have the path to the executable. Press the up arrow and you got it, even on nix.

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#240

Post by jordigh »

adtac wrote: post #184
Tsiklon wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MacOS doesn't appear to ship GPLv3 licensed code. 3.2 is the last update on GPLv2. Alternatively - newer versions of ZSH are frequently provided by Apple.

What's wrong with shipping GPLv3 code? Can't they just provide the source (are they making significant changes that they want to keep proprietary?) to comply with the license?

Apple likes to push DRM, which GPLv3 forbids. Apple also is afraid to give patent grants, which GPLv3 requires. Thus, Apple refuses to get anywhere near GPLv3 code, and won't even make it easy to give you GPLv3 source that you can build yourself.
Post reply on HN