linuxmemes
Hint: :q!
Sister communities:
Community rules (click to expand)
1. Follow the site-wide rules
- Instance-wide TOS: https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
- Lemmy code of conduct: https://join-lemmy.org/docs/code_of_conduct.html
2. Be civil
3. Post Linux-related content
sudo
in Windows.4. No recent reposts
5. π¬π§ Language/ΡΠ·ΡΠΊ/Sprache
6. (NEW!) Regarding public figures
We all have our opinions, and certain public figures can be divisive. Keep in mind that this is a community for memes and light-hearted fun, not for airing grievances or leveling accusations.Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.
Lol, I love that someone made this. What if your input has newlines tho, gotta use that NUL terminator!
God, I wish more tools had nice NUL-separated output. Looking at you, jq
. I dunno why this issue has been open for so long, but it hurts me. Like, they've gone back and forth on this so many times...
#!/usr/bin/python
No, sorry. I'm a python dev and I love python, but there's no way I'm using it for scripting. Trying to use python as a shell language just has you passing data across Popen
calls with a sea of .decode
and .encode
. You're doing the same stuff you would be doing in shell, but with a less concise syntax. Literally all of python's benefits (classes, types, lists) are negated because all of the tools you're using when writing scripts are processing raw text anyway. Not to mention the version incompatibility thing. You use an f-string in a spicy way once, and suddenly your "script" is incompatible with half of all python installations out there, which is made worse by the fact that almost every distro has a very narrow selection of python versions available on their package manager. With shell you have the least common denominator of posix sh. With Python, some distros rush ahead to the latest release, while other hang on to ancient versions. Even print("hello world")
isn't guaranteed to work, since some LTS ubuntu versions still have python
pointing to python2.
The quickest cure for thinking that Python "solves" the problems of shell is to first learn good practices of shell, and then trying to port an existing shell script to python. That'll change your opinion quickly enough.
I didn't know the locale part...
I had os-prober fail if locale was Turkish, the seperator thing could explain that.
I learned about it the hard way lol. seq
used to generate a csv file in a script. My polish friend runs said script, and suddenly there's an extra column in the csv...
A lot of people call set -euo pipefail
the "strict mode" for bash programming, as a reference to "use strict";
in JavaScript.
In other words, always add this if you want to stay sane unless you're a shellcheck user.
People call set -euo pipefail
strict mode but, it's just another footgun in a language full of footguns. Shellcheck is a fucking blessing from heaven though. I wish I could forcibly install it on every developer's system.
set -euo pipefail
is, in my opinion, an antipattern. This page does a really good job of explaining why. pipefail is occasionally useful, but should be toggled on and off as needed, not left on. IMO, people should just write shell the way they write go, handling every command that could fail individually. it's easy if you write a die
function like this:
die () {
message="$1"; shift
return_code="${1:-1}"
printf '%s\n' "$message" 1>&2
exit "$return_code"
}
# we should exit if, say, cd fails
cd /tmp || die "Failed to cd /tmp while attempting to scrozzle foo $foo"
# downloading something? handle the error. Don't like ternary syntax? use if
if ! wget https://someheinousbullshit.com/"$foo"; then
die "failed to get unscrozzled foo $foo"
fi
It only takes a little bit of extra effort to handle the errors individually, and you get much more reliable shell scripts. To replace -u, just use shellcheck with your editor when writing scripts. I'd also highly recommend https://mywiki.wooledge.org/ as a resource for all things POSIX shell or Bash.
Putting or die βblah blahβ
after every line in your script seems much less elegant than opβs solution
The issue with set -e
is that it's hideously broken and inconsistent. Let me copy the examples from the wiki I linked.
Or, "so you think set -e is OK, huh?"
Exercise 1: why doesn't this example print anything?
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e
i=0
let i++
echo "i is $i"
Exercise 2: why does this one sometimes appear to work? In which versions of bash does it work, and in which versions does it fail?
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e
i=0
((i++))
echo "i is $i"
Exercise 3: why aren't these two scripts identical?
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e
test -d nosuchdir && echo no dir
echo survived
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -e
f() { test -d nosuchdir && echo no dir; }
f
echo survived
Exercise 4: why aren't these two scripts identical?
set -e
f() { test -d nosuchdir && echo no dir; }
f
echo survived
set -e
f() { if test -d nosuchdir; then echo no dir; fi; }
f
echo survived
Exercise 5: under what conditions will this fail?
set -e
read -r foo < configfile
And now, back to your regularly scheduled comment reply.
set -e
would absolutely be more elegant if it worked in a way that was easy to understand. I would be shouting its praises from my rooftop if it could make Bash into less of a pile of flaming plop. Unfortunately , set -e
is, by necessity, a labyrinthian mess of fucked up hacks.
Let me leave you with a allegory about set -e
copied directly from that same wiki page. It's too long for me to post it in this comment, so I'll respond to myself.
From https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/105
Once upon a time, a man with a dirty lab coat and long, uncombed hair showed up at the town police station, demanding to see the chief of police. "I've done it!" he exclaimed. "I've built the perfect criminal-catching robot!"
The police chief was skeptical, but decided that it might be worth the time to see what the man had invented. Also, he secretly thought, it might be a somewhat unwise move to completely alienate the mad scientist and his army of hunter robots.
So, the man explained to the police chief how his invention could tell the difference between a criminal and law-abiding citizen using a series of heuristics. "It's especially good at spotting recently escaped prisoners!" he said. "Guaranteed non-lethal restraints!"
Frowning and increasingly skeptical, the police chief nevertheless allowed the man to demonstrate one robot for a week. They decided that the robot should patrol around the jail. Sure enough, there was a jailbreak a few days later, and an inmate digging up through the ground outside of the prison facility was grabbed by the robot and carried back inside the prison.
The surprised police chief allowed the robot to patrol a wider area. The next day, the chief received an angry call from the zookeeper. It seems the robot had cut through the bars of one of the animal cages, grabbed the animal, and delivered it to the prison.
The chief confronted the robot's inventor, who asked what animal it was. "A zebra," replied the police chief. The man slapped his head and exclaimed, "Curses! It was fooled by the black and white stripes! I shall have to recalibrate!" And so the man set about rewriting the robot's code. Black and white stripes would indicate an escaped inmate UNLESS the inmate had more than two legs. Then it should be left alone.
The robot was redeployed with the updated code, and seemed to be operating well enough for a few days. Then on Saturday, a mob of children in soccer clothing, followed by their parents, descended on the police station. After the chaos subsided, the chief was told that the robot had absconded with the referee right in the middle of a soccer game.
Scowling, the chief reported this to the scientist, who performed a second calibration. Black and white stripes would indicate an escaped inmate UNLESS the inmate had more than two legs OR had a whistle on a necklace.
Despite the second calibration, the police chief declared that the robot would no longer be allowed to operate in his town. However, the news of the robot had spread, and requests from many larger cities were pouring in. The inventor made dozens more robots, and shipped them off to eager police stations around the nation. Every time a robot grabbed something that wasn't an escaped inmate, the scientist was consulted, and the robot was recalibrated.
Unfortunately, the inventor was just one man, and he didn't have the time or the resources to recalibrate EVERY robot whenever one of them went awry. The robot in Shangri-La was recalibrated not to grab a grave-digger working on a cold winter night while wearing a ski mask, and the robot in Xanadu was recalibrated not to capture a black and white television set that showed a movie about a prison break, and so on. But the robot in Xanadu would still grab grave-diggers with ski masks (which it turns out was not common due to Xanadu's warmer climate), and the robot in Shangri-La was still a menace to old televisions (of which there were very few, the people of Shangri-La being on the average more wealthy than those of Xanadu).
So, after a few years, there were different revisions of the criminal-catching robot in most of the major cities. In some places, a clever criminal could avoid capture by wearing a whistle on a string around the neck. In others, one would be well-advised not to wear orange clothing in certain rural areas, no matter how close to the Harvest Festival it was, unless one also wore the traditional black triangular eye-paint of the Pumpkin King.
Many people thought, "This is lunacy!" But others thought the robots did more good than harm, all things considered, and so in some places the robots are used, while in other places they are shunned.
The end.
Yup, and set -e
can be used as a try/catch in a pinch (but your way is cleaner)
I was tempted for years to use it as an occasional try/catch, but learning Go made me realize that exceptions are amazing and I miss them, but that it is possible (but occasionally hideously tedious) to write software without them. Like, I feel like anyone who has written Go competently (i.e. they handle every returned err
on an individual or aggregated basis) should be able to write relatively error-handled shell. There are still the billion other footguns built directly into bash that will destroy hopes and dreams, but handling errors isn't too bad if you just have a little die
function and the determination to use it.
"There are still the billion other footguns built directly into bash that will destroy hopes and dreams, but"
That's well put. I might put that at the start of all of my future comments about bash
in the future.
I've been meaning to learn how to avoid using pipefail, thanks for the info!
I have written 5 shell scripts ever, and only 1 of them has been more complex than "I want to alias this single command"
I can't imagine being an actual shell dev
only 1 of them has been more complex than βI want to alias this single commandβ
I have some literal shell aliases that took me hours to debug...
Shell is great, but if you're using it as a programming language then you're going to have a bad time. It's great for scripting, but if you find yourself actually programming in it then save yourself the headache and use an actual language!
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didnβt stop to think if they should
Honestly, the fact that bash exposes low level networking primitives like a TCP socket via /dev/TCP is such a godsend. I've written an HTTP client in Bash before when I needed to get some data off of a box that had a fucked up filesystem and only had an emergency shell. I would have been totally fucked without /dev/tcp, so I'm glad things like it exist.
EDIT: oh, the article author is just using netcat, not doing it all in pure bash. That's a more practical choice, although it's way less fun and cursed.
EDIT: here's a webserver written entirely in bash. No netcat, just the /bin/bash binary https://github.com/dzove855/Bash-web-server
The few times I've used shell for programming it was in strict work environments where anything compiled was not allowed without a ton of red tape.
Wouldn't something interpreted like python be a better solution?
For more complicated input/output file handling, certainly.
Little shell scripts do great though if all you need to do is concatenate files by piping them.
It's like the Internet, it's not one big truck but a series of tubes.
Yep, in my mind piping together other commands is scripting not programming, exactly what shell scripts are for!
Alpine linux, one of the most popular distros to use inside docker containers (and arguably good for desktop, servers, and embedded) is held together by shell scripts, and it's doing just fine. The installer, helper commands, and init scripts are all written for busybox sh. But I guess that falls under "scripting" by your definition.
Aka busybox in disguise π₯Έ
Gotta love a meme that comes with a man
page!
This is much better than a man page. Like, have you seen those things?
I really recommend that if you haven't, that you look at the Bash's man page.
It's just amazing.
I think you mean aman
zing.
I'll see myself out.
People say that if you have to explain the joke then it's not funny. Not here, here the explanation is part of the joke.