As a bash casual, these suggestions are a reminder of why I avoid using bash when I can. That's a whole armory of footguns right there.

What is better?

I think Python is overused, but this is exactly what Python is great for. Python3 is already installed or trivial to install on almost everything, it has an enormous library of built-ins for nearly everything you'll need to do in a script like this, and for all of its faults it has a syntax that's usually pretty hard to subtly screw up in ways that will only bite you a month or two down the road.

My general rule of thumb is that bash is fine when the equivalent Python would mostly be a whole bunch of `subprocess.run` commands. But as soon as you're trying to do a bunch of logic and you're reaching for functions and conditionals and cases... just break out Python.

I've been pretty happy with the experience of using Python as a replacement for my previous solutions of .PHONY-heavy Makefiles and the occasional 1-line wrapper batch file or shell script. It's a bit more verbose, and I do roll my eyes a bit occasionally at stuff like this:

    call([options.cmake_path,'-G','Visual Studio 16','-A','x64','-S','.','-B',build_folder],check=True)

But in exchange, I never have to think about the quoting! - and, just as you say, any logic is made much more straightforward. I've got better error-checking, and there are some creature comforts for interactive use such as a --help page (thanks, argparse!) and some extra checks for destructive actions.

Golang. You build one fat binary per platform and generally don't need to worry about things like dependency bundling or setting up unit tests (for the most part it's done for you).

I use different languages for different purposes. Although bash euns everywhere, its a walking footgun and thus I only use it for small sub 100 line no or one option Scripts. the rest goes to one of Python, which nowadays runs almost everywhere, Julia or a compiled language for the larger stuff

If you just want to move some files around and do basic text substitution, turning to Python or another other "full fledged programming language" is a mistake. There is so much boiler plate involved just to do something simple like rename a file.

You mean

    import os
    os.rename(“src.txt”, “dest.txt”)

?

Yes. And it is only downhill from there.

Now, show us `mycommand | sed 's/ugly/beautiful/g' | awk -F: '{print $2,$4}' 1> something.report 2> err.log` in Python.

That looks like a snippet from a command session which is a perfectly great place to be using sh syntax.

If it became unwieldy you’d turn it into a script:

  #!/bin/sh

  beautify() {
    sed -e ‘
      s/ugly/beautiful/g
      …other stuff
    ‘
  }

  select() {
    awk ‘
      {print $2, $4}
      …other stuff
    ‘
  }

  mycommand | beautify | select

For me, now it’s starting to look like it could be safer to do these things in a real language.

Is it really so bad? A bit more verbose but also more readable, can be plenty short and sweet for me. I probably wouldn't even choose Python here myself and it's the kind of thing shell scripting is tailor-made for, but I'd at least be more comfortable maintaining or extending this version over that:

  from subprocess import Popen, PIPE

  CMD = ("printf", "x:hello:67:ugly!\nyy$:bye:5:ugly.\n")
  OUT = "something.report"
  ERR = "err.log"

  def beautify(str_bytes):
      return str_bytes.decode().replace("ugly", "beautiful")

  def filter(str, \*index):
      parts = str.split(":")
      return " ".join([parts[i-1] for i in index])

  with open(OUT, "w") as out, open(ERR, "w") as err:
      proc = Popen(CMD, stdout=PIPE, stderr=err)
      for line_bytes in proc.stdout:
        out.write(filter(beautify(line_bytes), 2, 4))

I would agree though if this is a one-off need where you have a specific dataset to chop up and aren't concerned with recreating or tweaking the process bash can likely get it done faster.

Edit: this is proving very difficult to format on mobile, sorry if it's not perfect.

In ruby you can just call out to the shell with backticks.

Like.

    myvar = `mycommand | sed 's/ugly/beautiful/g' | awk -F: '{print $2,$4}' 1> something.report 2> err.log`

That way, if something is easier in Ruby you do it in ruby, if something is easier in shell, you can just pull its output into a variable.. I avoid 99% of shell scripting this way.

That is fair...

But if all I need to do is generate the report I proposed...why would I embed that in a Ruby script (or a Python script, or a Perl script, etc.) when I could just use a bash script?

Bash scripts tend to grow to check on file presence, conditionally run commands based on the results of other commands, or loop through arrays. When it is a nice pipelined command, yes, bash is simpler, but once the script grows to have conditions, loops, and non-string data types, bash drifts into unreadability.

I don’t think it’s fair to compare a workflow that is designed for sed/awk. It’s about 10 lines of python to run my command and capture stdout/stderr - the benefit of which is that I can actually read it. What happens if you want to retry a line if it fails?

> I don’t think it’s fair to compare a workflow that is designed for sed/awk.

If your position is that we should not be writing bash but instead Python, then yes, it is absolutely fair.

> the benefit of which is that I can actually read it.

And you couldn't read the command pipeline I put together?

> What happens if you want to retry a line if it fails?

Put the thing you want to do in a function, execute it on a line, if the sub-shell returns a failure status, execute it again. It isn't like bash does not have if-statements or while-loops.

My point is that if you take a snippet designed to be terse in bash, it’s an unfair advantage to bash. There are dozens of countless examples in python which will show the opposite

> And you couldn't read the command pipeline I put together?

It took me multiple goes, but the equivalent in python I can understand in one go.

> Put the thing you want to do in a function, execute it on a line, if the sub-shell returns a failure status, execute it again. It isn't like bash does not have if-statements or while-loops.

But when you do that, it all of a sudden looks a lot more like the python code

Just ask chatgpt and you’ll get a script, probably makes some tests too if you ask for it.

I have not really been a fan of ChatGPT quality. But even if that were not an issue, it is kinda hard to ask ChatGPT to write a script and a test suite for something that falls under export control and/or ITAR, or even just plain old commercial restrictions.

You forgot to point out all those "footguns" you avoided by writing in Python rather than bash...

This has all of the purported problems of doing this directly in a shell language and zero advantages...

Babashka/clojure is a fairly pleasant way to write scripts.

I also think bun alongside typescript is quite viable, especially with the shell interop:

https://bun.sh/docs/runtime/shell

Xonsh. Been using it since 2018. Bash scripting sucks in comparison.

For reference, it seems to be this: https://xon.sh

  XONSH is a Python-powered shell

  Xonsh is a modern, full-featured and cross-platform shell. The language is a
  superset of Python 3.6+ with additional shell primitives that you are used to
  from Bash and IPython. It works on all major systems including Linux, OSX, and
  Windows. Xonsh is meant for the daily use of experts and novices.

Haven't heard of it before personally, and it looks like it might be interesting to try out.

Use bash for simple stuff, and Perl or TCL for applications.

Python or go

Python.

Zsh

POSIX gang disapproves

I stopped caring about POSIX shell when I ported the last bit of software off HP-UX, Sun OS, and AIX at work. All compute nodes have been running Linux for a good long while now.

What good is trading away the benefits of bash extensions just to run the script on a homogeneous cluster anyways?

The only remotely relevant alternative operating systems all have the ability to install a modern distribution of bash. Leave POSIX shell in the 1980s where it belongs.

> * #!/bin/bash instead of #!/usr/bin/env bash

Except that'll pick up an old (2006!) (unsupported, I'm guessing) version of bash (3.2.57) on my macbook rather than the useful version (5.2.26) installed by homebrew.

> -z instead of actually checking how many arguments you got

I think that's fine here, though? It's specifically wanting the first argument to be a non-empty string to be interpolated into a filename later. Allowing the user to pass an empty string for a name that has to be non-empty is nonsense in this situation.

> You're seriously grepping shell scripts to determine what things you should install?

How would you arrange it? You have a `prepare_X.sh` script which may need to activate a specific Java SDK (some of them don't) for the test in question and obviously that needs to be installed before the prepare script can be run. I suppose you could centralise it into a JSON file and extract it using something like `jq` but then you lose the "drop the files into the directory to be picked up" convenience (and probably get merge conflicts when two people add their own information to the same file...)

> Except that'll pick up an old (2006!) (unsupported, I'm guessing) version of bash (3.2.57) on my macbook rather than the useful version (5.2.26) installed by homebrew.

Could you change that by amending your $PATH so that you're preferred version is chosen ahead of the default?

> Could you change that by amending your $PATH

I think the `#!/bin/bash` will always invoke that direct file without searching your $PATH. People say you can do `#!bash` to do a $PATH search but I've just tried that on macOS 15 and an Arch box running a 6.10.3 kernel and neither worked.

I think I misread the original recommendation as being the other way round i.e. to use #!/usr/bin/env bash instead of #!/bin/bash.

That's why env is generally preferred as it finds the appropriate bash for the system.

The GP is pointing out [bad bash, good bash] and not [good bash, bad bash]. It was unclear to me at first as well.

You two are in violent agreement.

No, they're not. The script they're critiquing uses #!/bin/bash, so they have to have been saying that #!/usr/bin/env bash is better.

They're definitely both critiquing the script in the OP for the same thing in the same way. They're in agreement with each other, not with the script in TFA

> They're in agreement with each other

Oh. Oh! This is a confusing thread. Apologies all!

Oh, I also got confused! You're right, this is just a confusing subthread.

The 1brc shell script uses `#!/bin/bash` instead of `#!/usr/bin/env bash`. Using `#!/usr/bin/env bash` is the only safe way to pick up a `bash` that’s in your $PATH before `/usr/bin`. (You could do `#! bash`, but that way lies madness.)

Madness is

    #!/usr/bin/env

As far as quick and dirty scripts go, I wouldn’t care about most of the minor detail. It’s no different to something you’d slap together in Ruby, Python, or JS for a bit of automation.

It’s only when things are intended to be reused or have a more generic purpose as a tool that you need them to behave better and in a more standard way.

I had some similar thoughts when seeing the script.

For better user friendliness, I prefer to have the logging level determined by the value of a variable (e.g. LOG_LEVEL) and then the user can decide whether they want to see every single variable assignment or just a broad outline of what the script is doing.

I was taken back by the "print_and_execute" function - if you want to make a wrapper like that, then maybe a shorter name would be better? (Also, the use of "echo" sets off alarm bells).

What's so bad in using echo?

Well, strokes beard, funny you should ask.

Have a look at https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls#echo_.24foo

Most of the time, "echo" works as you'd expect, but as it doesn't accept "--" to signify the end of options (which is worth using wherever you can in scripts), it'll have problems with variables that start with a dash as it'll interpret it as an option to "echo" instead.

It's a niche problem, but replacing it with "printf" is so much more flexible, useful and robust. (My favourite trick is using "printf" to also replace the "date" command).

Also, here's some more info on subtle differences between "echo" on different platforms: https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/65803/why-is-printf...

Thank you!

> * #!/bin/bash instead of #!/usr/bin/env bash

This one becomes very apparent when using NixOS where /bin/bash doesn’t exist. The vast majority of bash scripts in the wild won’t run on NixOS out of the box.