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.
  • _thebrain_@lemmy.world
    5·
    1 year ago

    Afaik your not stuck with bash. You can use the shebang to decide on your script interpreter. Bash is just ubiquitous… But you can #!/use/bin/python3 if you want

  • GodOfThunder@lemm.eeOP
    4·
    1 year ago

    Bash-like scripting is widely used in operating systems due to several features that make it well-suited for shell scripting. Here are the reasons behind the prevalence of Bash in shell scripting:

    1. Familiarity and Compatibility:

      • Bash has been around for a long time and has become the de facto standard for shell scripting[1].
      • Many existing scripts and tools are written in Bash, ensuring compatibility and interoperability with other systems.
      • Bash is available on most Unix-like systems by default, making it convenient for scripting tasks across different platforms.

    2. Integration with the Shell Environment:

      • Bash is tightly integrated with the shell environment, allowing easy access to system utilities, environment variables, and other shell features[2].
      • This integration makes Bash well-suited for automating system administration tasks and interacting with the operating system.

    3. Powerful Command-Line Processing:

      • Bash provides powerful command-line processing capabilities, including wildcard expansion, command substitution, and input/output redirection[3].
      • These features enable concise and efficient scripting for tasks such as file manipulation, text processing, and pipeline operations.

    4. Extensive Built-in Functionality:

      • Bash includes a wide range of built-in functions and features, such as string manipulation, arithmetic operations, and regular expression matching[3].
      • These capabilities eliminate the need for external tools or libraries in many cases, simplifying the scripting process.

    5. Portability and Availability:

      • Bash is widely available and portable across different operating systems, making it a practical choice for scripting tasks that need to run on various platforms[4].
      • Many system administrators and developers are already familiar with Bash, reducing the learning curve and facilitating collaboration and code sharing.

    While Bash may not have the syntactic elegance or advanced programming features of other languages, its strengths lie in its simplicity, compatibility, and integration with the shell environment. It provides a convenient and efficient way to automate tasks, interact with the operating system, and leverage the power of the command line. As a result, Bash remains a popular choice for shell scripting, even with alternative languages and frameworks available[6].

    Citations:

  • beeng@lemmy.fmhy.ml
    2·
    1 year ago

    Love bash! K.I.S.S

    What are you looking for that bash doesn’t have or what don’t you like about bash? What could be done better?