Yes, and now it is considered healthy for the Swiss to drink masses of beer ("in Maßen" vs. "in Massen") and if you have to pay a fine, you apparently have to pay in buses ("Buße" vs. "Busse"). I could never understand why Swiss Standard German went for a ß -> ss substitution, and not for a ß -> sz substitution, which would've avoided this particular mess and would've also been historically more correct. Now you have to teach children in school that a vocal before a double s is short, but only of the double s was not originally a ß which was originally an sz, so not a double consonant at all. Simple!

yeah, but they didn't get rid of the mess, they kind of made it harder for German-learners to pronounce a written word (in comparison to the post-reform federal german spelling).

i.e. "Fuß" vs swiss "Fuss"

Swiss spelling makes it appear as if "Fuss" (with a long u) could be pronounced like "Nuss" (with a short u), whereas standard German "Fuß" is clear on that.

Prior to the German spelling reform, Nuss was also written "Nuß" and back then the swiss way of spelling had the appeal of avoiding an extra character that is specific to the german language (and wasn't found on french typewriters for example).

What I meant was a spelling like "Fus, Füse, Nuss, Nüsse" but "Gras, Gräzer" (instead of Gras Gräser).

z would be the soft s-sound represented by s in traditional german spelling. s would be the hard s sound represented by ß or s in traditional german spelling.

Fuss is because we have both french è é à and german ü ö ä on our keyboards, so we don't have room for ß.

Luckily for shell scripting, $ is unshifted (shifted would be £. I far prefer USD GBP CHF etc.)

(nonante-neuf > quatre-vingt-dix-neuf. Fais-moi changer d'avis :-) )

Not only that, ß is useful because it disambiguates some words that only differ in usage of ss vs. ß (and in their pronunciation), e.g. Masse (mass) != Maße (measures).