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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Removed by mod
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.
What features does bash have that make it so suitable for shells?
You mean, except being automatically available in basically every Linux distribution without having to install any additional software?
They’re asking why it became available everywhere.
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.
Because other languages available at that time lacked certain programming conveniences found in bash :) Despite its shortcomings, it’s still a very convenient language for running other programs, working with files, and piping output from one program to another, or to a file. Bash was first released in 1989, and I don’t know exactly when it passed the threshold for widespread adoption, but I can’t think of anything that would’ve been a better alternative.
I think OP is also asking “why aren’t people switching to something else now” which is a completely different question.
Because it’s automatically available in basically every Linux distribution without having to install any additional software.
So it became ubiquitous because it was ubiquitous.
Got it.
yea … for me, until proven otherwise, I’m thinking bash + *nix shell ecosystem is basically a COBOL that isn’t cool to make fun of (yet?).
All of the bash apologia I see whenever it comes up is not really encouraging. I get it, it’s got some handy features, but overall it’s clearly suboptimal for many, and that we keep on using because we’ve been keeping on using it but convince ourselves it’s good/cool … is not healthy.
So it became ubiquitous because it was ubiquitous.
IMO it became ubiquitous because it was a superset of the already-ubiquitous Bourne shell.
Because it was easily possible to become ubiquitous, because, well, what I said.
There really is no other reason. Bash scripting is slow and lacks a lot of features. But it simply works.
Bash is fine. Now powershell, that’s utter garbage.
On behalf of garbage, I loudly protest on this attempt to assimilate it to Powershell.
Bah! I find it hard to believe that if you ever truly used ps that you’d think it was garbage.
I’m rather fond of it myself.
Work forbids me from writing scripts in anything other than PowerShell or Batch and its painful. Would be a non-issue if I could use anything else. I’m all too familiar with ps and its overly long commands.
cat list.txt |? $_ -eq “ok” }
This sows nicely in the console. Your challenge, should you accept it, is to append a string of 100char instead of “or nor ok” and output this in a file, one row per string.
Good luck and remember the bureau will negate participating in any element of this mission
I upvoted because fuck microsoft but i was very surprised at how easy it was to script in ps. Outputs are formatted similarly and you can quite easily have exactly the info you want ,how you want, while in bash its a lot more loose. That comes with the open source territory though.
That’s about why I don’t like it. Commands are too verbose and specific.
This, powershell is pretty nice albeit verbose and TTY in Windows suck and slow (haven’t scripted in PS since 4 years ago so not sure about current state of affairs). Python is my de-facto shell now if I want to do anything shell related.
PS is still slow AF
I never used Powershell. Why is it garbage in your opinion?
Commands are too verbose. A line I write in bash could be 15 characters. In Powershell it would be 30+. Each command is several words mashed together and not even in proper camelcase. Some words are upper some lower. I can predict the next word in a bash script. In Powershell i gotta look it up.
deleted by creator
50k lines is, IMHO, way too large for a bash script. I’d switch to python long before before that. Bash is primarily an *interactive shell. Bash has a lot of nice scripting capabilities (that few are aware of, let alone use) but its primary use is not as a programing language. As far as standard libraries go: sed, awk, grep, curl, netcat, etc… provide plenty of advanced capabilities. That’s the Unix philosophy, lots of small utilities that each do one thing well and that work with streams of bytes as i/o. Tie them together with a powerful shell, and an ordinary user can do quite a lot without “programming”. Is the Unix philosophy perfect? No. Has it proved to be the most flexible and successful compute environment developed for over 50 years? Yes.
Engineering is tradeoffs.
A command shell is focused on file operations and starting/stopping applications. So it makes it easy to do those things.
You can use scripting languages (e.g. Node.js/Python) to do everything bash does but they are for general purpose computing and so what and how you perform a task becomes more complicated.
This is why its important to know multiple languages, since each one will make specific tasks easier and a community forms around them as a result.
If I want to mess with the file system/configuration I will use Bash, if I want to build a website I will use Typescript, if I want to train a machine learning model I will use Python, if I am data engineering I will use Java, etc .
I personally wouldn’t, because the Unix philosophy should still apply. If you need 50k lines of bash to do something that a collection of existing command line tools already can do, you may need to re-evaluate your needs.
As @nous@programming.dev said here, POSIX compliance is extremely important. Much of the “real world” infrastructure is still UNIX based, especially in finance. It isn’t easy to replace those systems at all, especially a legacy codebase that literally the entire world runs on. COBOL and Fortran applications in banking are still being updated today, despite efforts to modernise systems because they just work and the code is pretty much hardened at this point.
As always, in every industry, there is a “right tool” for the job. The great thing about the Unix philosophy is, if correctly applied across your stack, it doesn’t matter what language you write the tools in. Your bash script is only going to be forwarding that output to something that is suited to handle it. This person sped up their python application by using Rust for one set of functions.
why are you stuck with bash? just write a shebang and then your interpreter in the first line of your script.
i can use bash, python, lua and al kinds of stuff…
i don’t understand the question. if you mean, why does my shell only accept bash syntax, if i set my shell to bash, idk. use another shell?
‘sh’ is kind of the smallest common thing that’s available everywhere. so when you got to script something that needs to run somewhere not under your control, you use ‘sh’. and that’s kind of it works. you’ll find something, that’s been around for some time, otherwise it won’t have spread everywhere. and now you can’t replace it in newer products, because there is so much stuff using it.
if that isn’t one of your problems, go with my first suggestions and just use python or something like that as your scripting language.
I’m gonna get crucified for saying this, but… I write a lot of my scripts in PHP. It’s just a language that I’m very familiar with.
This isn’t reddit, if that tool does the jobs effectively then great.
crucified?! You’re awesome mate!
Plus, on the fediverse, PHP’s kinda cool again (I think) … or at least should be.
i think lemmy is coded in rust.
The backend yes. The frontend (or the default web UI front end) is coded in typescript using a React-like library (called Inferno if I remember correctly).
( my oppinion: i personally don’t like php and js for being too complicated. they are very easy to begin with, which is a good thing. but too difficult to master. there are soo many weird things going on, so many edge cases to remember, and all the pitfalls that are there to help the beginner but require a professional to pay close attention. i like something strict, maybe with type safety and a compiler that yells at you if you’re forgetting something or trying to do something stupid. not silently convert it. )
Other than that: Whatever floats your boat… I don’t think it’s wrong to use something like php. i have used it and still use it from time to time. heck, i’ve even used lua where people start counting with ‘1’. sometimes it is the correct tool. sometimes it’s more important to get a job done, than having it done in a certain way. and of course people like to work with something that they’re familiar with. you’re probably better off and faster this way.
I’ve used Js for scripts, especially when JSON is involved.
My logic is to use whichever language is best for the job out of those I’m familiar with, and can be understood by people who might read it. Then I forget logic and try to use lisps wherever possible.
Bash isn’t the only shell. Most systems can use zsh or fish or tcsh or whatever shell you prefer, if you like that better than bash. You’re gonna have to run a shell if you want to use the terminal, though, you understand that?
Shell scripts are very good for specific tasks. Don’t use them for tasks that are unsuitable. Use python or go or node or c if those are better for your needs. Use the right tool for the job. But also, learn to understand why the industry has been using shell scripts for decades.
Bash isn’t the only shell. Most systems can use zsh or fish or tcsh or whatever shell you prefer, if you like that better than bash. You’re gonna have to run a shell if you want to use the terminal, though, you understand that?
Defaults matter. There are a lot of situations where you aren’t allowed to install whatever you want. It would be less of an issue if other shells or language run-times came preinstalled. The problem isn’t really Bash itself. It’s the fact that it’s often the only dependable option. But thankfully that’s starting to change and you can usually find python preinstalled at minimum.
As a shell,
tcshwas OK if only because it included GNU Readline (or something like it) and, despite being a couple of years younger, kind of beatbashto the punch for that user-friendliness on account of being a largely unchanged drop-in replacement for its predecessor.Unfortunately, that also means it’s as problematic as its predecessor too: Csh programming considered harmful.
Not to be used for anything serious.
Why did you write this post in English instead of Esperanto? English is a pretty shit language, especially as the Lingua Franca…
As for your reasoning, it’s obvious you don’t know what bash is used for. It’s purpose is to get shit done quickly and to make working with cli tools easy. For tasks where you need to write more than a few lines of code, or need a feature like cross platform compilation, you should switch to a proper language.
As for why that’s good, try writing something along the lines of “curl | jq | cat >> file” in C. For extra points write it out in a single line, in under a minute, while also keeping it perfectly readable.
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.
I wouldn’t use the word “stuck”, Bash is a result of over 50 years of technological advancement and experience. It works on servers, remotely, is lean and powerful. It’s not that user friendly, because it doesn’t need to be.
ZSH and Fish are available on *nix systems for a little bit more sugar. I personally don’t use raw Bash because I just love what ZSH can do, but I love writing Bash scripts.
Let’s see here. We’re talking about a thirty-plus-year-old language that was deliberately written as a superset of
shfrom 1979. Its main purpose is to glue together other command-line programs on 'NIXish systems to automate complex procedures for sysadmins. Using it as a general-purpose programming language, while not impossible, is kinda dumb if you have any other options. Within its original niche, it ain’t broke, so there’s no need to fix it.It’s a contemporary of Tcl and Perl, not of Python and Java (and
shis from the era where microcomputers mostly used BASIC dialects). Unlike Perl, it didn’t bolt on object orientation or other more modern features afterwards—and really, Perl was intended as just the kind of “shell script killer” you seem to be thinking of in your introduction. However, it never completely displaced the shell built-in scripting languages even in the days before it fell out of favour itself. Might be that there’s a reason for that.You’re not. Your shell is set in /etc/passwd. Set it to iPython if you want.
Bash adheres to the POSIX standard for a shell, which limits what it can have in terms of UX. If you really want something with a different UX you can try something like fish. Just be warned that if you do, you’ll quickly learn how wrong your bullet point about bash not being portable is.
Check out xonsh.
deleted by creator
You’re missing the point.
Bash is the ducktape of programming languages.
And *nix shells a perfect example of the KISS principle.
I think you just need to use the right tool for the job.
Personally bash scripts are fine for any basic comparison operations or just running stuff together like a windows batch file. Maybe checking result codes, searching for processes, selectively killing etc.
Beyond that, but where I expect it to be still a convenience/automation script I use perl (which is where probably most people would now use python, but I’m old). It can still be run from command line, it can access databases, can be OO if you want it to (but generally if I am going that far I move to a faster language) and in general for moderately complex automation I use perl.
If it gets complicated (250+ lines as a general rule) or needs speed, then I’d move onto a proper programming language because now it has become a project.
But, that’s just me.
