One reason is deployment. Writing code in python/node/etc... implies the ability of the production environment to bootstrap a rather complicated installation tree for the elaborate runtimes required by the code and all its dependencies. And so there are elaborate tools (npm, venv, Docker, etc...) that have grown up around those requirements.
Compiled languages (and Go in particular shines here) spit out a near-dependency-free[1] binary you can drop on the target without fuss.
I deal with this in my day job pretty routinely. Chromebooks have an old python and limited ability to pull down dependencies for quick test runs. Static test binaries make things a lot easier.
[1] Though there are shared libraries and runtime frameworks there too. You can't deploy a Gnome 3 app with the same freedom you can a TCP daemon, obviously.
But I think for python you could also deploy a binary with pyinstaller.
I think it's more accurate to say "static binaries" instead of "compiled languages." The same headaches exist with dynamically linked, compiled binaries (and sometimes they're worse since you don't have a dependency manager, unless you add one)
> Static test binaries make things a lot easier I think this really depends on your target environment and how much control you have over it. If you're in a Ruby or Python shop, for example, all your servers already have the stack installed. If you're targeting end user devices, those can have a huge mess of different configs to account for
It's nothing like that with Python or Node. The rule there is that you get something working locally and then spend a while reverse engineering a pip/venv recipe or manifest or whatever to make it work somewhere else. It's decidedly non-trivial.
I could imagine a lifetime of collecting scripting macros/libs in lisp to be as good or better.
However, the reason Bash is so prolific amongst Sys Admins such as myself is the fact that they are portable and reliable to use across Debian, Arch or RHEL based distributions.
You don't have to import extra libraries, ensure that you are running the proper python environment, or be certain that pip is properly installed and configured for whatever extra source code beyond what is included out of the box.
Bash is the most consistent code you can write to perform any task you need when you have to work with Linux.
Python is (at least in the CPython implementation) compiled, to python byte code which runs on the python virtual machine.
Its not compiled to native code. (Unless you use one of the compilers which do compile it to native code, though they tend to support only a subset of python.)
Once you use it to manage complex data structures and flow, you are simply wasting time because you will have to rewrite it in Python or Go.
Just like your post does! :)
Until you try to use a newer feature or try the script in a Mac or BSD or any older bash.
SH code is completely portable, but bash itself can have quite a few novel features. Don’t get me wrong - I’m happy the language is dynamic and still growing. But it can make things awkward when trying to use a script from a newer system on an older server (and the author has been “clever”).
Not exactly.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11376975/is-there-a-mini...
Installing python or nodejs into your distro will inflate it by at least 30mb, quite crucial when dealing with containers
That requires a level of bookkeeping which is helpful for large programs and a nuicense for small programs.
I do have to add that Python more than any other language I've used results in working the first try that it's not surprising.
actually amount of reasoning, which program requires to perform in run time is close to interpretion.
Not false, but perhaps in need of better definition. The term script has often denoted a trivial set of commands run by $interpreter.
"Scripting languages" have been seen as being in contrast to C, C++, Pascal, Java, SmallTalk, &c. The scripting languages remove from the user the need:
-a- to think about an extensive type system,
-b- to compile the logic, and
-c- to build for a specific architecture.
Yes, and if the thing I'm trying to do has a small input, it will only be done once, etc. I will often just pipe `grep` to `sort` or whatever, because it's less typing, it's generally clearer to a wider range of people, etc.
But on larger inputs, or even things like doing a single pattern inversion mixed with a pattern match, I like awk.
I can sympathize with the author w.r.t wanting to use a single language you like for everything. However, after decades I've found this to be untenable. There are languages that are just simply better for one-off scripting (Perl, Python), and languages that aren't (anything compiled). Trying to bolt an interpreter onto a compiled language from the outside seems like a lot of work for questionable gain.