Re:Bash-Fu
by billybob on Thursday March 24, 2011 @06:58AM
(#2363549)
You know, I work at the command line all day, and I'm always happy to learn a new trick. But for writing actual scripts, I'd much rather write in Ruby. I don't want to have to use awkward syntax like case statements ending with "esac."
Yes, using Ruby introduces a dependency beyond Unix. But I already use lots of libraries (Rails, Rspec, etc) and tools (ImageMagick, Ghostscript), so I don't see that as a problem, just part of the job.
Re:Bash-Fu
by wladimir on Thursday March 24, 2011 @07:49AM
(#2363633)
Indeed, I've long ago adopted the convention to do any remotely advanced scripting in a "real" scripting/programming language (myself, I use Python for this).
Bash scripting is good for running a few commands in a sequence, but in my experience gets unmaintainable and unreadable very quickly, especially if you try to do sane error handling/logging, or operations on non-text data.
Re:Bash-Fu
by BrandonM on Thursday March 24, 2011 @09:08AM
(#2363888)
I'll use command lines like that when I just need to get something done (after verifying that there are no files named "foo.sym"), but to write a script that uses a hard-coded filename that could stomp on other files is pretty bad. If you have a symlink foo and a file foo.sym, you've just erased foo.sym. The script also leaves all the .sym symlinks behind; it's not clear that this is the desired behavior.
If you're going to make a site and call it bash-fu, shouldn't you make sure your bash is at least good?
Re:Bash-Fu
by tygorius on Thursday March 24, 2011 @02:03AM
(#2363058)
I think it was a reference to the color scheme in the screen shot, not to the site itself. I find choices like dark blue and brown against black to be hard to read.
Re:Bash-Fu
by wtallis on Thursday March 24, 2011 @02:52AM
(#2363154)
You've probably got a low-quality LCD with a bad color calibration, then, or else just a really bad contrast ratio or lots of glare. That color scheme doesn't seem to me to have any colors that would clash, even to colorblind and partially-colorblind people. Sure, it's a relatively low-contrast color scheme, but I think it would be generally harder to read if the contrast were really high. You shouldn't use much in the way of full-intensity colors when you have a black background.
Re:Bash-Fu
by billswift on Thursday March 24, 2011 @06:07AM
(#2363454)
It looks like it is a modified version of normal emacs highlighting for shell scripts to me; the colors are different from the defaults on my computer but not wildly so.
Re:Bash-Fu
by kree10 on Thursday March 24, 2011 @10:17AM
(#2364138)
Seeing #!/bin/bash is one of my pet peeves.
If it's a straight shell script, use "#!/bin/sh" please. If the script actually requires bash features, I'd appreciate "#!/usr/bin/env bash" because if I choose to install bash, it probably won't be in /bin.
Yes, using Ruby introduces a dependency beyond Unix. But I already use lots of libraries (Rails, Rspec, etc) and tools (ImageMagick, Ghostscript), so I don't see that as a problem, just part of the job.
Bash scripting is good for running a few commands in a sequence, but in my experience gets unmaintainable and unreadable very quickly, especially if you try to do sane error handling/logging, or operations on non-text data.
http://ruby-doc.org/stdlib/libdoc/fileutils/rdoc/index.html
I can't edit my post anymore, but I remembered that there is a similarly named site for command line tricks:
http://www.commandlinefu.com
If you're going to make a site and call it bash-fu, shouldn't you make sure your bash is at least good?
http://eriwen.com/bash/effective-shorthand/
http://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201102#28
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/68372/what-is-your-single...
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/211378/hidden-features-of...
http://i.imgur.com/ya8WI.png
http://d.pr/LXvR
If it's a straight shell script, use "#!/bin/sh" please. If the script actually requires bash features, I'd appreciate "#!/usr/bin/env bash" because if I choose to install bash, it probably won't be in /bin.