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

291–300 of 306 posts

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#291

Post by wlib »

palunon wrote: post #217
klibertp wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Python REPL is an incredibly poor UI for repeated execution of subprocesses Python REPL, even with recent additions of TAB completion, is a poor REPL, period. IPython, on the other hand, offers a much better programming environment than shell while still allowing easy access to most of the things you mention. Example: In [1]: from pathlib import Path In [2]: file = Path("~/.sbclrc").expanduser().read_text() In [3]:…

> In [3]: !echo "$file" | awk '!/^;;/' That's Bash (or at least sh). Which excels at piping the output of programs into other programs, and pay that cost for everything else.

Piping program output is just function composition. The downside is that it works over expensive system processes, and data must be serialized. It's a fragile system where instead of using built-in functions, we use "standard" executables.

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#292

Post by wlib »

meditate wrote: post #167
nothrabannosir wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(re: Bash-vs-OS integration) bash is a programming language like any other, and you could use anything with a REPL as your shell. Python should do. In fact, I'll try it right now.. Yes, it works. Just sudo chsh -s /usr/bin/python and off you go. Once you start doing this for a bit, you'll notice that the Python REPL is an incredibly poor UI for repeated execution of subprocesses. It is very elaborate. Having to const…

You may be interested in xonsh, a shell that supports both python and bash-like expressions: https://xon.sh/

Thank you for this

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#293

Post by JeremyBanks »

platinumrad wrote: post #28
JeremyBanks wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can't be done. If you want to write reliable code, and actually notice all of the possible error conditions instead of silently ignoring them, your code needs to get more verbose and complicated than it would be to just use a more capable tool like Python or Node, and it still won't be as reliable. If you have more logic than a couple of string comparisons, Bash is not the right tool for the job.

>Python or Node Python, sure, but replacing Bash with Node just seems like replacing a language crippled by its need to be backward compatible with (Bourne) sh with a language crippled by its need to be backward compatible with what Brandon Eich came up with in two weeks in 1995.

It wouldn't be my first choice either, but modern JavaScript isn't backwards-compatible, it is at least possible to write reliable and robust code if you take some care and know what options to enable, and it's mostly consistent across platforms. Last month, I spent a week trying to handle all of the possible error conditions in an overgrown bash script. It was immeasurably worse.

Python is the more direct substitute, though: it's built-in to almost every platform, and the Python 3 stagnation has even given us a consistent version: 2.7.

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#294

Post by Carpetsmoker »

ajross wrote: post #223
Carpetsmoker wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, is it 2007 again? Hasn't this been discussed to death already? I have little interest to repeat it again; this discussion has been on-going for ten years already (longer if we count GPL vs. BSD discussions, which are roughly similar). Everyone should be familiar with the arguments by now; I trust you're already familiar with mine. I understand that you're well-intentioned, but I find the suggestion that I'm someh…

So... you don't really know what restrictions you're talking about, right? I mean, you brought up the subject: "There are restrictions!" "What restrictions?" "Everyone knows. It's patronizing to ask me. I won't say."

The whole tivo-isation thing has been discussed extensively, as well as the problems with trying to prevent it with the license.

I didn't include an entire summary of it, as it can be easily looked up on e.g. Wikipedia, as well as many other places.

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#295

Post by Carpetsmoker »

int_19h wrote: post #285
Carpetsmoker wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeh, GPL2 is also considered less than ideal, and replacing GPl2 code has been a low-key long-term goal. GPL2 is still considered acceptable though, whereas GPL3 is outright barred.

Is there any GPL code remaining in the base at this point? I thought it was all gone once they replaced gcc with Clang.

I think gcc is still in base, right? They just added clang and set that as the default, AFAIK. I haven't kept up with FreeBSD much in the last few years, so not sure what the plans are to remove gcc.

Also, a quick look at the source tree shows there are still some other parts as well. GNU binutils, GNU diff, dialog is GPL, etc. See: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/tree/master/contrib

In the kernel, I think there are some drivers that are based on the Linux GPL code, for example: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/blob/1d6e4247415d264485ee... (just first hit from GitHub search for "gpl")

So yeah, looks like there's still plenty of GPL code in FreeBSD that's not trivially replaceable. The same applies to OpenBSD, although in general the OpenBSD people tend to be a bit more proactive in replacing GPL code.

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#297

Post by avarun »

offmycloud wrote: post #286
ltc5505 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since I'm clueless on the subject, can I ask how you determined that information and what resource I could use to become better informed?

A good first step is disabling SSL 3.x and TLS 1.0 in your daily browser. I would also recommend the excellent Qualys SSL Server Test: https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/

Is there any way to do that on Chrome macOS?

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#298

Post by a012 »

zx2c4 wrote: post #113
a012 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some application still requires bash, like wireguard

WireGuard doesn't require bash. The main configuration utility, wg(8), is written in vanilla C. However, the tools ship with a little convenience script, called wg-quick(8), which is indeed written in bash. It started out as the thing I was using to configure my laptop on the go, but then others found it helpful. It's by no means essential or central to WireGuard, and lots of people use different things to wrap wg(8)…

Based on your documents[1] of Mac OS, it looks very like wireguard requires bash version 4 or newer because wireguard-tools will install bash as dependency. Maybe you should edit the docs or shouldn't deliver wireguard-tools?

   $ brew install wireguard-tools
[1] - https://www.wireguard.com/install/

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#299

Post by yesenadam »

palunon wrote: post #209
hkt wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Syntactic sugar is a phrase permanently marred for me by the ruby community: it means "cognitive load for other people who know the language but don't keep up with the faddy bits". It made me tremendously sad.

Yeah, but C-style "for" loops are nice, right ? Still, they really are a syntactic sugar for a "while". The problem is more with a language having fady bits and people using them when they don't make the code clearer, than with syntactic sugar.

C-style "for" loops are nice, right

Well... I know macros are supposed to be bad, but.. I've been programming in C for a long time, but only recently tried 'sugaring' my loops with

  #define _(x,y) for (x=0;x
..which has worked soo well, I'm sticking with it. It makes programming in C much more pleasurable. (My programs mostly have a lot of nested loops over multidimensional arrays, mostly from 0, inc'ed by 1)

So now instead of e.g.

  for (i=0;i
it's just

  _(i,WID) _(j,HEI) {
which makes me smile every time.

Re: Bash 5.0 released

#300

Post by yesenadam »

wlib wrote: post #291
palunon wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In [3]: !echo "$file" | awk '!/^;;/' That's Bash (or at least sh). Which excels at piping the output of programs into other programs, and pay that cost for everything else.

Piping program output is just function composition. The downside is that it works over expensive system processes, and data must be serialized. It's a fragile system where instead of using built-in functions, we use "standard" executables.

I think, rather, function composition is just piping program output.
Post reply on HN