News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The bash book to rule them all by traceroute66 on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @02:56AM (#38187813)
Because Python is godawful for dependencies.

With Go, you write, you compile, you ship the binary, job done.

Re:The bash book to rule them all by geocrasher on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @02:59AM (#38187823)
Is Go genuinely as dependency independent as bash on a fresh Linux install? If so I'd find this very interesting and perhaps worthwhile to learn. I work in an environment where everything is done at the Linux command line. I'd be thrilled to re-do some of my my complex bash scripts in Go if there is a good advantage to doing so.
Re:The bash book to rule them all by mbwgh on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @03:14AM (#38187902)
The idea is that if you need dependencies, you only need them present during compilation on the machine you develop on. You then compile a statically linked binary and copy this to the machine where it's needed.

There may be other advantages like static types, editor integration and so on, but that's beside the point.

Re:The bash book to rule them all by dharmab on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @04:47AM (#38188386)
Go's dependency management is in a really good state. For building your code, Go modules are generally easy to use and editor integrations exist to automatically update your dependencies as you type. Then you build a static binary and distribute it, no installers or packages required.
Re:The bash book to rule them all by adr1an on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @05:02AM (#38188471)
That sounds like a lot of steps when you require interaction (e.g. for bash I list files, then try find, then xargs with echo, etc until I got what I wanted..)
Re:The bash book to rule them all by elzbardico on Wednesday November 08, 2023 @06:25AM (#38188952)
For the kind of things I do with bash scripts, the python standard library is usually more than enough.