Compared to other languages, Bash can be incredibly worse for some things, but much better for others.
People who don't realise that won't be able to get the best out of their toolset.
No. It’s still an interesting yard stick. It just doesn’t describe programming languages in full. For example, and someone counterintuitively, it is actually possible to design a programming language that isn’t Turing complete. Some esoteric functional languages do actually fall into that category. But generally programming languages would be a subset of Turing complete software.
> And on that same note, have you seen the stuff being done in Minecraft?
I have, hence why I cited it as an example.
> It is quite up for debate whether it is a programming language.
One could debate anything but it doesn’t mean the argument is made in good faith.
Minecraft is a game. I’m happy to even extend the definition and say it’s supports some visual programming mechanics. But that doesn’t mean it is a programming language.
Just because something has 4 legs and a tail, it doesn’t automatically mean it is a dog.
Bash is definitely a different paradigm to your average imperative or functional language and thus requires a different approach but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s not “real”.
It certainly fits the criteria of a programming language even if it does have more warts than a pantomime witch.