this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Linux

48003 readers
977 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
0
Why are we stuck with bash programming language in the shell? (lemm.ee)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by GodOfThunder@lemm.ee to c/linux@lemmy.ml
3 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Bash-like scripting has become ubiquitous in operating systems, and it makes me wonder about its widespread adoption despite lacking certain programming conveniences found in other languages. While it may not be the ideal choice for large-scale software development, the bash shell possesses unique features that make it well-suited for interactive command-line processing, including pipelining, text manipulation, and file handling. Why isn't there an alternative that combines the best of bash's command-line capabilities with the robustness and scalability of traditional programming languages. Why do even new operating systems, such as Redox OS, opt for a similar syntax rather than a completely different programming language?

Here are some of the limitations I find in Bash compared to other programming languages:

  1. Syntax and Expressiveness:

    • Bash has a relatively simple syntax compared to other programming languages. It lacks some advanced language features such as object-oriented programming, complex data structures, and advanced control flow constructs.
    • The syntax of Bash can be less intuitive and more error-prone, especially for complex tasks or larger projects.

  2. Performance:

    • Bash scripts can be slower compared to compiled languages like C or Java. This is because Bash is an interpreted language, and each line of code is interpreted at runtime.
    • Bash may not be the best choice for computationally intensive tasks or applications that require high performance.

  3. Error Handling and Debugging:

    • Error handling and debugging in Bash can be challenging. Bash does not provide robust error handling mechanisms, and error messages can be cryptic and difficult to interpret.
    • Debugging Bash scripts can be cumbersome, as there is limited tooling and debugging support compared to other programming languages.

  4. Portability:

    • While Bash is available on most Unix-like systems, it may not be available on all platforms or versions. This can limit the portability of Bash scripts.
    • Bash scripts may not work as expected on non-Unix systems or require modifications to run on different platforms.

  5. Limited Standard Library:

    • Bash has a limited standard library compared to other programming languages. It lacks comprehensive libraries for tasks such as networking, database access, or advanced data manipulation.
    • Bash often relies on external tools or utilities to perform complex operations, which can introduce dependencies and compatibility issues.

  6. Lack of Modularity and Reusability:

    • Bash scripts can become monolithic and difficult to maintain as they grow in size. Bash does not provide strong mechanisms for modularization or code reuse.
    • Reusing code or creating libraries in Bash can be challenging, leading to code duplication and decreased maintainability.
top 3 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nous@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

POSIX compliance for the most part. Which is meant to give you a consistent API you can write software against that will work on any UNIX system. At least that is the theory behind it. It basically acts as a lowest common denominator for UNIX systems. Want to write a script that will work on all systems - bash or a similar shell will almost certainly be present.

A new system can change this if they wanted to. But then they won't be able to take advantage of all the existing bash scripts out there that everyone is writing. Which adds a lot of friction to adoption.

So in a way we are locked into a bash like shell now. Unless you can get a lot of distros to change this shell it is very hard to change it for a single one. And changing something so fundamental across lots of distros will upset a lot of people that are used to bash.

And shells overall are preferred to general purpose programming languages as their main focus is executing other commands and piping input/output from one to another or to/from files. Something most programming languages make a bit awkward as that is not their focus.

There are a bunch of non-POSIX shells, like fish, nushell, ion etc but these will likely not become the default anytime soon due to the inertia that bash has. But luckjly you can install what ever shell or language you want in addition to bash and switch to that for your interactive shell or even scripting if you want to. They just won't become the defaults for a long time - if ever.

[–] DidacticDumbass@lemmy.one 1 points 11 months ago

I know I am reviving an old thread, but my philosophy is that posts are timeless and age should not be a reason not to respond.

Currently I am in the project of learning Rust and Raku, because I am interested in becoming a better systems programmer and I want to be able to do things for my computer without hitting a wall when a solution does not exist, or simply to master my second home.

This is a mindset issue. There is a lot of legacy opinions on how to use your computer, but never forget it is YOUR computer. I say never worry about something being portable to others. What you make will be portable to you, and that is all that matters. Make your computer yours. If someone wants to use your computer but can't, isn't that a win?

[–] corytheboyd@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

It’s here, it’s there, it’s everywhere. The problem with replacing things that work with something “better” is that “better” is subjective, so you end up with a new “better” way every few years, and maintaining existing systems becomes a god awful slog. See the JavaScript ecosystem.

The bash I wrote 10 years ago still works today, and it will still work in 10 more years. The same bash will very likely work on your computer, on a remote server, etc. This is the power of not chasing “better” all the time.

Try running a Ruby or Node program from 10 years ago today on your computer. Now, try running it on a random Linux server.

Please do not take this as a slight against Ruby or Node, or any other high level programming language. Bash compared to those is simply apples and oranges, they are not the same thing.

By all means, if you have a project that requires a Ruby runtime anyway, write operational scripts with Ruby, run them with Rake, etc.

Want a portable script that doesn’t depend on a complex runtime? Use bash.

If bash is too limiting, use Perl. No, seriously. Perl is fine. It is about as ubiquitously available as bash, and the standard library likely has what you need to get the job done. People blindly dismiss Perl because some blog post told them to, usually in the context of writing application code. You’re not writing application code, you’re writing scripts. Would you write an application with bash? No.