undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmatheusmoreira2d ago0 comments

Yeah. I will probably join their ranks at some point.

Bash maintainer actually implemented the library feature I suggested and it's already dramatically cut down the amount of unsightly bash code I need to keep around and maintain.

I'm getting pretty tired of coping with old stuff just because it's there though. Went through this phase with GNU make too.

0 comments

freedomben2d ago

I struggle with this too. On the plus side, the devil you know is often better than the devil you don't know, and anything new will require re-learning a lifetime's worth of muscle memory. It's also nice to know that your bash scripts are going to be hyper-portable and will still work even many years later. The muscle memory is also real. However it isn't great to be constrained with unsightly code for sake of extreme backwards compatibility. I've found a nice balance personally where I use ruby if I need anything that bash isn't good at, but it's never a perfectly clean split.

matheusmoreiraOP2d ago

> It's also nice to know that your bash scripts are going to be hyper-portable

Doubt. I'm up to my neck in bashisms, and I require the very latest bash on top of that.

  import() {
    local f
    for f in "$@"; do
      [[ -v loaded[$f] ]] && continue
      loaded[$f]=1
      source -p "${HOME}/.local/lib/bash" "${f}"
    done
  }

  import arguments terminal

The -p flag for source landed in bash 5.3.

freedomben2d ago

Well yes, if you're using newer features, it's not going to be available on older systems that lack a newer bash version with those features available. I think that's pretty reasonable, otherwise we'd have to freeze the language and never add anything. But your older scripts will be very portable between future systems, and across different distros once they update. If you need to target an older system, you can't use newer features, but that's true of everything so I wouldn't expect any different from bash.

sxldier1d ago

Sorry, which library feature?

matheusmoreiraOP1d ago

I proposed adding an import builtin to bash on the mailing list. Sent patches too. Didn't go very well, to say the least.

Nevertheless, a version of the feature landed in bash 5.3.

  source -p "${HOME}/.local/lib/bash" file

You can use that to implement the library import function yourself.

  import() {
    local f
    for f in "$@"; do
      [[ -v loaded[$f] ]] && continue
      loaded[$f]=1
      source -p "${HOME}/.local/lib/bash" "${f}"
    done
  }

  import arguments terminal

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

freedomben2d ago

matheusmoreiraOP2d ago

> It's also nice to know that your bash scripts are going to be hyper-portable

Doubt. I'm up to my neck in bashisms, and I require the very latest bash on top of that.

  import() {
    local f
    for f in "$@"; do
      [[ -v loaded[$f] ]] && continue
      loaded[$f]=1
      source -p "${HOME}/.local/lib/bash" "${f}"
    done
  }

  import arguments terminal

The -p flag for source landed in bash 5.3.

freedomben2d ago

sxldier1d ago

Sorry, which library feature?

matheusmoreiraOP1d ago

I proposed adding an import builtin to bash on the mailing list. Sent patches too. Didn't go very well, to say the least.

Nevertheless, a version of the feature landed in bash 5.3.

  source -p "${HOME}/.local/lib/bash" file

You can use that to implement the library import function yourself.

  import() {
    local f
    for f in "$@"; do
      [[ -v loaded[$f] ]] && continue
      loaded[$f]=1
      source -p "${HOME}/.local/lib/bash" "${f}"
    done
  }

  import arguments terminal

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse