Re:Pure Bash Bible
by dec0dedab0de on Thursday September 19, 2019 @10:29AM
(#21016511)
My rule of thumb is to use a real language if there is more than one if fi block.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
So, what in your opinion constitutes a "real language", and why?
Re:Pure Bash Bible
by dec0dedab0de on Thursday September 19, 2019 @03:29PM
(#21019745)
a "real language" would be any programming language that is primarily designed and presented as a programming language.
Nice recursive definition..
The practice of programming in shell languages was well established when Bash was designed and Bash was definitely designed with that use in mind. So by your definition Bash is a "real" programming language.
Lisp on the other hand, was much more designed as a system and formal notation to reason about certain classes of logic problems.. So, Lisp is not a "real" language?
Re:Pure Bash Bible
by dec0dedab0de on Thursday September 19, 2019 @09:40PM
(#21022556)
Bash is primarily a shell, it even has the word shell in its full name.
And a shell can't be a real language? https://scsh.net/
Re:Pure Bash Bible
by dec0dedab0de on Friday September 20, 2019 @09:22AM
(#21026362)
a shell can't be a real language?
No, it can not.
Re:Pure Bash Bible
by jigglesniggle on Friday September 20, 2019 @01:57PM
(#21029472)
By "programming language" he probably means something that has robust flow control mechanisms and metaprogramming facilities.
You can definitely tell there's a different "feel" to bash and Tcl, Python, Perl, Go, etc, yes? Shell languages basically evolved out of batch processing languages that were meant to only run programs in sequence and it shows.