Use Long Options in Scripts

Re:Use Long Options in Scripts by delusional on Saturday March 22, 2025 @06:57AM (#43444903)

I think the right way to think about this (if your goal is to avoid surprises at least) is that options (short or long) are just strings. There's no guarantee that there's a long variant of an option. There's not even a requirement that options start with a dash. A sufficiently brain-damaged developer could start them with a slash or something.

If you're going for portability the best bet is to just read the manual for each of the separate versions and do whatever works.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Use Long Options in Scripts by sgarland on Saturday March 22, 2025 @08:56AM (#43445405)

To this day, I write tar options with no dash, simply because I can. `tar cvzf foo.tar.gz ./foo`

I would never write a new program with this option, but I do find it a delightful historical oddity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Use Long Options in Scripts by saghm on Saturday March 22, 2025 @06:26PM (#43449154)

I've noticed that it seems to be a pattern that's used for other compression/decompression software as well. Sometimes mods I use for games will be uploaded as rars or 7zips (I guess because this stuff gets developed on and for Windows, and tarballs aren't really something people use much there), and the CLI invocations I use to extract them always look off to me, especially the 7zip one: `unrar x` and `7z x`.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Use Long Options in Scripts by saghm on Saturday March 22, 2025 @06:23PM (#43449131)

That sounds reasonable to me. If anything, I might even go further and say that reading the manuals wouldn't be enough to fully convince me without also actually testing it by running a script on a given platform. It's not that I don't trust the manuals to be right, but I have less trust in myself to write bug-free code than probably any other language I've ever used, and I don't think I'd feel confident without verifying that I actually did what the manual said correctly.

[ Parent | on HN ]