Bash-like scripting has become ubiquitous in operating systems, and it makes me wonder about its widespread adoption despite lacking certain programming conveniences found in other languages. While it may not be the ideal choice for large-scale software development, the bash shell possesses unique features that make it well-suited for interactive command-line processing, including pipelining, text manipulation, and file handling. Why isn’t there an alternative that combines the best of bash’s command-line capabilities with the robustness and scalability of traditional programming languages. Why do even new operating systems, such as Redox OS, opt for a similar syntax rather than a completely different programming language?

Here are some of the limitations I find in Bash compared to other programming languages:

  1. Syntax and Expressiveness:

    • Bash has a relatively simple syntax compared to other programming languages. It lacks some advanced language features such as object-oriented programming, complex data structures, and advanced control flow constructs.
    • The syntax of Bash can be less intuitive and more error-prone, especially for complex tasks or larger projects.

  2. Performance:

    • Bash scripts can be slower compared to compiled languages like C or Java. This is because Bash is an interpreted language, and each line of code is interpreted at runtime.
    • Bash may not be the best choice for computationally intensive tasks or applications that require high performance.

  3. Error Handling and Debugging:

    • Error handling and debugging in Bash can be challenging. Bash does not provide robust error handling mechanisms, and error messages can be cryptic and difficult to interpret.
    • Debugging Bash scripts can be cumbersome, as there is limited tooling and debugging support compared to other programming languages.

  4. Portability:

    • While Bash is available on most Unix-like systems, it may not be available on all platforms or versions. This can limit the portability of Bash scripts.
    • Bash scripts may not work as expected on non-Unix systems or require modifications to run on different platforms.

  5. Limited Standard Library:

    • Bash has a limited standard library compared to other programming languages. It lacks comprehensive libraries for tasks such as networking, database access, or advanced data manipulation.
    • Bash often relies on external tools or utilities to perform complex operations, which can introduce dependencies and compatibility issues.

  6. Lack of Modularity and Reusability:

    • Bash scripts can become monolithic and difficult to maintain as they grow in size. Bash does not provide strong mechanisms for modularization or code reuse.
    • Reusing code or creating libraries in Bash can be challenging, leading to code duplication and decreased maintainability.
  • @QuazarOmega
    6•1 year ago

    Everyone talks about the fact that Bash is what it is because it is first and foremost an interactive shell, but nowadays some design decisions are just inexcusable in my opinion, like the awful syntax of common programming constructs, the if in particular, that would only benefit from following how every other language works even if they aren’t meant as shells.
    Some also argue against the non-modularity with the fact that you should use it for only quick and easy stuff, but that’s just an excuse, if the language runtime that comes preinstalled in your system had modern features and sane syntax you would stick to that and save yourself from installing Python/Ruby if they’re not needed; and it is clear that there is a need for modularity, otherwise plugin managers wouldn’t exist, many swear by downloading the scripts directly and sourcing them in the name of “KISS”, but that is just silly when there is a good system set in place that makes it actually easier to manage it all.
    Then there’s the issue of the holy pipelining, that has more or less been overcome by some languages already, this example in Rust shows that it can be easy, so there’s no reason why a terse scripting language couldn’t achieve the same.

    In the end I don’t know what’s holding the landscape back, I noticed Xonsh that looks very interesting, but I never tried it, I wonder if it is POSIX compliant and if that aspect even is so fundamental to the success of a shell