Linux

What features does bash have that make it so suitable for shells?

You mean, except being automatically available in basically every Linux distribution without having to install any additional software?

Why did you write this post in English instead of Esperanto? English is a pretty shit language, especially as the Lingua Franca...

As for your reasoning, it's obvious you don't know what bash is used for. It's purpose is to get shit done quickly and to make working with cli tools easy. For tasks where you need to write more than a few lines of code, or need a feature like cross platform compilation, you should switch to a proper language.

As for why that's good, try writing something along the lines of "curl | jq | cat >> file" in C. For extra points write it out in a single line, in under a minute, while also keeping it perfectly readable.

why are you stuck with bash? just write a shebang and then your interpreter in the first line of your script.

i can use bash, python, lua and al kinds of stuff...

i don't understand the question. if you mean, why does my shell only accept bash syntax, if i set my shell to bash, idk. use another shell?

'sh' is kind of the smallest common thing that's available everywhere. so when you got to script something that needs to run somewhere not under your control, you use 'sh'. and that's kind of it works. you'll find something, that's been around for some time, otherwise it won't have spread everywhere. and now you can't replace it in newer products, because there is so much stuff using it.

if that isn't one of your problems, go with my first suggestions and just use python or something like that as your scripting language.

It’s here, it’s there, it’s everywhere. The problem with replacing things that work with something “better” is that “better” is subjective, so you end up with a new “better” way every few years, and maintaining existing systems becomes a god awful slog. See the JavaScript ecosystem.

The bash I wrote 10 years ago still works today, and it will still work in 10 more years. The same bash will very likely work on your computer, on a remote server, etc. This is the power of not chasing “better” all the time.

Try running a Ruby or Node program from 10 years ago today on your computer. Now, try running it on a random Linux server.

Please do not take this as a slight against Ruby or Node, or any other high level programming language. Bash compared to those is simply apples and oranges, they are not the same thing.

By all means, if you have a project that requires a Ruby runtime anyway, write operational scripts with Ruby, run them with Rake, etc.

Want a portable script that doesn’t depend on a complex runtime? Use bash.

If bash is too limiting, use Perl. No, seriously. Perl is fine. It is about as ubiquitously available as bash, and the standard library likely has what you need to get the job done. People blindly dismiss Perl because some blog post told them to, usually in the context of writing application code. You’re not writing application code, you’re writing scripts. Would you write an application with bash? No.

Bash is fine. Now powershell, that's utter garbage.

I think you just need to use the right tool for the job.

Personally bash scripts are fine for any basic comparison operations or just running stuff together like a windows batch file. Maybe checking result codes, searching for processes, selectively killing etc.

Beyond that, but where I expect it to be still a convenience/automation script I use perl (which is where probably most people would now use python, but I'm old). It can still be run from command line, it can access databases, can be OO if you want it to (but generally if I am going that far I move to a faster language) and in general for moderately complex automation I use perl.

If it gets complicated (250+ lines as a general rule) or needs speed, then I'd move onto a proper programming language because now it has become a project.

But, that's just me.

I wouldn't use the word "stuck", Bash is a result of over 50 years of technological advancement and experience. It works on servers, remotely, is lean and powerful. It's not that user friendly, because it doesn't need to be.

ZSH and Fish are available on *nix systems for a little bit more sugar. I personally don't use raw Bash because I just love what ZSH can do, but I love writing Bash scripts.

Have a look at the Python+Bash marriage shell Xonsh or something else Nushell. If these are too radical to you, then have a look at Fish.

Why do we stuck with Bash? Compatibility and historical reason. You are always free to use an alternative. Bash isn't even well suited for interactive shell, Zsh would be better option for that. The points you listed would be solved if you use a dedicated and proper programming language. Bash is not recommended for complex and big applications, if that is what you are comparing. The other way round shouldn't be forgotten too. If you need a simple automation task and want to share the simple script for the operating system you are using on with others, Bash is good. No need to do all the complicated stuff.

Bash adheres to the POSIX standard for a shell, which limits what it can have in terms of UX. If you really want something with a different UX you can try something like fish. Just be warned that if you do, you'll quickly learn how wrong your bullet point about bash not being portable is.

Bash isn’t the only shell. Most systems can use zsh or fish or tcsh or whatever shell you prefer, if you like that better than bash. You’re gonna have to run a shell if you want to use the terminal, though, you understand that?

Shell scripts are very good for specific tasks. Don’t use them for tasks that are unsuitable. Use python or go or node or c if those are better for your needs. Use the right tool for the job. But also, learn to understand why the industry has been using shell scripts for decades.

Bash is ok for simple scripts, else there's awk, I once had to maintain a 5000 lines awk script which was incredibly powerful

Let's see here. We're talking about a thirty-plus-year-old language that was deliberately written as a superset of sh from 1979. Its main purpose is to glue together other command-line programs on 'NIXish systems to automate complex procedures for sysadmins. Using it as a general-purpose programming language, while not impossible, is kinda dumb if you have any other options. Within its original niche, it ain't broke, so there's no need to fix it.

It's a contemporary of Tcl and Perl, not of Python and Java (and sh is from the era where microcomputers mostly used BASIC dialects). Unlike Perl, it didn't bolt on object orientation or other more modern features afterwards—and really, Perl was intended as just the kind of "shell script killer" you seem to be thinking of in your introduction. However, it never completely displaced the shell built-in scripting languages even in the days before it fell out of favour itself. Might be that there's a reason for that.

I know I am reviving an old thread, but my philosophy is that posts are timeless and age should not be a reason not to respond.

Currently I am in the project of learning Rust and Raku, because I am interested in becoming a better systems programmer and I want to be able to do things for my computer without hitting a wall when a solution does not exist, or simply to master my second home.

This is a mindset issue. There is a lot of legacy opinions on how to use your computer, but never forget it is YOUR computer. I say never worry about something being portable to others. What you make will be portable to you, and that is all that matters. Make your computer yours. If someone wants to use your computer but can't, isn't that a win?

POSIX compliance for the most part. Which is meant to give you a consistent API you can write software against that will work on any UNIX system. At least that is the theory behind it. It basically acts as a lowest common denominator for UNIX systems. Want to write a script that will work on all systems - bash or a similar shell will almost certainly be present.

A new system can change this if they wanted to. But then they won't be able to take advantage of all the existing bash scripts out there that everyone is writing. Which adds a lot of friction to adoption.

So in a way we are locked into a bash like shell now. Unless you can get a lot of distros to change this shell it is very hard to change it for a single one. And changing something so fundamental across lots of distros will upset a lot of people that are used to bash.

And shells overall are preferred to general purpose programming languages as their main focus is executing other commands and piping input/output from one to another or to/from files. Something most programming languages make a bit awkward as that is not their focus.

There are a bunch of non-POSIX shells, like fish, nushell, ion etc but these will likely not become the default anytime soon due to the inertia that bash has. But luckjly you can install what ever shell or language you want in addition to bash and switch to that for your interactive shell or even scripting if you want to. They just won't become the defaults for a long time - if ever.