So bash is not portable because of bashisms, bloated and slow? Any of those 3 things could be a set-off, but all 3 at once makes me agree that bash sucks. #!/bin/sh should be good.
stali recommends loksh and mksh so I should try those. They're equally good? On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Mattias Andrée <maand...@kth.se> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 10:03:29 -0300 > Marc Collin <marc.coll...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi. >> Recently a user from suckless told me that bash sucks, >> but before I could ask why he went offline. >> I tried looking at suckless.org page about software that >> sucks, but couldn't find anything about bash. >> I can imagine why it sucks - no portability! #/bin/sh >> should be enough for everyone. Is that it or is something >> else to the matter? Maybe an entry to suckless.org suck >> page could be good to clarify things and also warn new >> users. Best wishes. >> > > To quote Bash's man page: it's too big and too slow. > I would also prefer if Bash did not implement a bunch > of built-in commands that is already found in the > system base. The only command that requires a built-in > version is test, because it implements a few flags > that requires that it is implemented in the shell. > And sadly, Bash's test is very buggy and is incompatible > with GNU coreutils's test. > I do not think it is an issue that it implements more > stuff than sh, some of these features are really useful.
