"Ugly" is subjective. If I encountered a file with that extension, I'd assume it uses Bash-specific features and that I shouldn't run this script with another shell.
The hashbang already specifies the shell, so also having it in the extension seems unnecessary. I don't like using '.sh' as an extension as it differs from other OS commands and I can't think where it's actually helpful.
If you download a script then running "sh script.sh" is a lot quicker and easier than a chmod followed by ./script.sh. You can of course also type "bash script.sh", but I don't always have it installed on every system, and the .bash extension just clarifies it.
For things in my PATH I drop any suffixes like that.
I see your point, but you can just as easily run "sh script" although that does imply that you already know that it's a shell script (obviously you wouldn't just run something from the internet without checking it first).
Yes, I get it. But in my case I simply give u+x permissions to the script and then run "./script.sh" and then the script will be executed with the interpreter defined in the shebang.
