undefined | Better HN

0 pointswruza3y ago0 comments

And for certain classes of users, certainly. If I were in $prj/some/dir and called “../../script.sh foo”, I’d expect it to operate on $prj/some/dir/foo, not on $prj/foo. The latter would be a confusing practice, not even remotely the best one.

people will google for how to set cwd to the script directory more often

The answer should suggest setting $script_dir instead of chdir and refer to it when needed, explaining why chdir is a wrong shell mindset except for a very few special cases. It’s okay for personal use, but inheriting such scripts would be an awful experience, imo.

0 comments

wolletd3y ago

I can only agree with this. In my experience, everybody coming from a lifetime with windows has to learn that a "working directory" has a very real and everyday meaning in Linux. Windows software just isn't designed that way because it usually has GUIs and "Open file" dialogs and doesn't use the cwd mostly. Most shortcuts even execute software in their installation directory (because it's most compatible with developers using relative paths for their assets and ignoring the existence of the cwd mechanic altogether, I guess?).

So for somebody just coming from Windows, this isn't just the wrong mindset for shell scripts, more dangerously it's a mindset they find appealing, because it matches their prior experience on Windows better.

erlkonig3y ago

My theory is that this same Windows experience is also how so many joined the command-with-filename-extension cargo cult. But unix and windows work differently, and the approach does NOT port.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

wolletd3y ago

erlkonig3y ago

My theory is that this same Windows experience is also how so many joined the command-with-filename-extension cargo cult. But unix and windows work differently, and the approach does NOT port.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse