Bash-Fu

by mrleinad • 15 years ago

57 21 15 years ago

What does this minimalistic page offer except links to (already) rather well-known Bash resources? Am I missing something?

piramida• 15 years ago

The bash-fu is weak within that site.

obiterdictum2• 15 years ago

I can't edit my post anymore, but I remembered that there is a similarly named site for command line tricks:

http://www.commandlinefu.com

fjarlq• 15 years ago

What's up with the difficult colors? I'm using Chrome 10 beta on OS X 10.6.

http://i.imgur.com/ya8WI.png

magicofpi• 15 years ago

That's strange. It looks fine on FF4 using Snow Leopard.

http://d.pr/LXvR

tygorius• 15 years ago

I think it was a reference to the color scheme in the screen shot, not to the site itself. I find choices like dark blue and brown against black to be hard to read.

pavel_lishin• 15 years ago

It's merely an accurate representation of the difficulty involved in writing bash scripts, as compared to just about everything else.

lamby• 15 years ago

More like POSIX shell fu - the example doesn't actually use any Bash-specific features.

kree10• 15 years ago

Seeing #!/bin/bash is one of my pet peeves.

If it's a straight shell script, use "#!/bin/sh" please. If the script actually requires bash features, I'd appreciate "#!/usr/bin/env bash" because if I choose to install bash, it probably won't be in /bin.

limmeau• 15 years ago

Exercise: make repl_links.sh work also when filenames contain blanks.

billybob2• 15 years ago

You know, I work at the command line all day, and I'm always happy to learn a new trick. But for writing actual scripts, I'd much rather write in Ruby. I don't want to have to use awkward syntax like case statements ending with "esac."

Yes, using Ruby introduces a dependency beyond Unix. But I already use lots of libraries (Rails, Rspec, etc) and tools (ImageMagick, Ghostscript), so I don't see that as a problem, just part of the job.

wladimir• 15 years ago

Indeed, I've long ago adopted the convention to do any remotely advanced scripting in a "real" scripting/programming language (myself, I use Python for this).

Bash scripting is good for running a few commands in a sequence, but in my experience gets unmaintainable and unreadable very quickly, especially if you try to do sane error handling/logging, or operations on non-text data.

billybob2• 15 years ago

Agreed. Although I should add that it's still great to call out to the standard Unix toolset when it's the easiest way to get something done. The accepted answer here illustrates that: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4714043/what-is-the-best-...

JonnieCache• 15 years ago

A quick...

    require 'fileutils'
    include FileUtils

...and you can almost pretend you are writing bash.

http://ruby-doc.org/stdlib/libdoc/fileutils/rdoc/index.html

krainboltgreene• 15 years ago

FileUtils is a step back as far as I'm concerned. In fact, all the file-stuff is both ill-documented and anti-ruby-readability.

gtani• 15 years ago

http://www.deer-run.com/~hal/UnixCommandLineKungFu.pdf

http://eriwen.com/bash/effective-shorthand/

http://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201102#28

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/68372/what-is-your-single...

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/211378/hidden-features-of...

BrandonM2• 15 years ago

I'll use command lines like that when I just need to get something done (after verifying that there are no files named "foo.sym"), but to write a script that uses a hard-coded filename that could stomp on other files is pretty bad. If you have a symlink foo and a file foo.sym, you've just erased foo.sym. The script also leaves all the .sym symlinks behind; it's not clear that this is the desired behavior.

If you're going to make a site and call it bash-fu, shouldn't you make sure your bash is at least good?

saurik• 15 years ago

I was also really bothered that the script failed to handle filenames that may contain spaces correctly.

BrandonM2• 15 years ago

Good catch.

Bash-Fu

Related Stories