Re:Pure Bash Bible
by dyanaraps on Thursday September 19, 2019 @06:35AM
(#21014973)
> Do you believe bash / POSIX shells actually follow KISS principles?
POSIX `sh` yes. `bash` less so but I'd still lean more towards a yes.
Ultimately though, it depends on how we define "simple". Both `bash` (2.6MB) and POSIX `sh` shells (`dash` (232KB), `ash` (1.2MB (busybox)), etc) are tiny in size if we compare them to Python (137MB) or Perl (44MB).
(Numbers taken from my system using `du` on each file which belongs to each shell/language.)
If we define "simple" to language features then I think the shells come out on top again (especially POSIX `sh`).
If we define "simple" as ease of use (without shooting yourself in the foot) then I'd agree with you and say that the shell loses here.
There's a time and place for using any tool (in production) but I find it fun to push the shell beyond what is thought possible in my personal projects. :)
POSIX `sh` yes. `bash` less so but I'd still lean more towards a yes.
Ultimately though, it depends on how we define "simple". Both `bash` (2.6MB) and POSIX `sh` shells (`dash` (232KB), `ash` (1.2MB (busybox)), etc) are tiny in size if we compare them to Python (137MB) or Perl (44MB).
(Numbers taken from my system using `du` on each file which belongs to each shell/language.)
If we define "simple" to language features then I think the shells come out on top again (especially POSIX `sh`).
If we define "simple" as ease of use (without shooting yourself in the foot) then I'd agree with you and say that the shell loses here.
There's a time and place for using any tool (in production) but I find it fun to push the shell beyond what is thought possible in my personal projects. :)