agreed. and the setup for this tool in particular looks… complicated and annoying, at least at first glance

for myself, if i want a shell script to be _portable_ i just write it in POSIX sh and try to be smart about dependencies

and if i don't care about portability, i'd rather just use a nicer shell like bash or zsh or fish (i'd actually like to mess with ysh at some point)

i feel like i'm much more likely to encounter a system with one of those shells available than one with modernish installed, and the idea of introducing a bundling/build step into shell scripts is deeply unappealing to me.

i can see why this exists, i think, and i imagine there are people who find it useful. i simply am not among them.

i also find it disappointing that their most basic example shows the setup in bash instead of sh, but that might just be me.

I get wanting some level of portability, but what kind of systems do you still encounter (and want to run your scripts on) that have sh yet lack Bash? I would've expected that to be the baseline nowadays.

For me it's small alpine containers running in k8s, and trying to get weird stuff running on my kobo ereader (can quickly get to a chroot with bash, but the base system doesn't have it).