esa

Yeah, while -e has a lot of limitations, it shouldn’t be thrown out with the bathwater. The unofficial strict mode can still de-weird bash to an extent, and I’d rather drop bash altogether when they’re insufficient, rather than try increasingly hard to work around bash’s weirdness. (I.e. I’d throw out the bathwater, baby and the family that spawned it at that point.)

Yeah, there’s also a subtle difference between ${1:-} and ${1-}: The first substitutes if 1 is unset or ""; the second only if 1 is unset. So possibly ${foo-} is actually the better to use for a lot of stuff, if the empty string is a valid value. There’s a lot to bash parameter expansion, and it’s all punctuation, which ups the line noise-iness of your scripts.

I don’t find it particularly legible or memorable; plus I’m generally not a fan of the variable amount of numbered arguments rather than being able to specify argument numbers and names like we are in practically every other programming language still in common use.

Yeah, another way to do it is

#!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail

if [[ $# -lt 1 ]]
then
  echo "Usage: $0 argument1" >&2
  exit 1
fi

i.e. just count arguments. Related, fish has kind of the orthogonal situation here, where you can name arguments in a better way, but there’s no set -u

function foo --argument-names bar
  ...
end

in the end my conclusion is that argument handling in shells is generally bad. Add in historic workarounds like if [ "x" = "x$1" ] and it’s clear shells have always been Shortcut City

Side note: One point I have to award to Perl for using eq/lt/gt/etc for string comparisons and ==/</> for numeric comparisons. In shells it’s reversed for some reason? The absolute state of things when I can point to Perl as an example of something that did it better

#!/bin/bash
set -euo pipefail

if [[ -z "${1:-}" ]]
then
  echo "we need an argument!" >&2
  exit 1
fi

The logs are handled, but I mostly use it for command separation and control, including killing unruly child processes.

I suspect my habit of having an alias userctl="systemctl --user" is slightly unusual, as is running Firefox, Steam, and some other graphical programs as systemd units is somewhat unusual (e.g. mod4-enter runs systemd-run --user alacritty)

But what I’m actually pretty sure is unique is my keyboard layout. I taught myself dvorak a summer some decades ago, but the norwegian dvorak layout has some annoyances, so I’ve made some tweaks. Used to be a Xmodmap file, but with the switch to wayland I turned it into a file in /usr/share/X11/xkb/symbols/.

Part of what I did to teach myself dvorak and touch-typing at the same time was randomize the placement of the keycaps too. It has a side effect of being a kind of security by obscurity layer: I type quickly and confidently, but others who want to use my machines have an “uhh …” reaction.

Same thing in Norwegian with “tøy” (verktøy, fly, kjøretøy, plus fartøy for water-faring vessels) … and then tøy by itself means cloth or clothes (also available through klestøy)

Yes, always has been.

There’s also no uppercase d in systemd, the word is entirely lowercase (but I’ll still write it with an uppercase s at the start of sentences).

Yeah, the manpages for systemd are large but also informative. Most of us only use a small subset of the features—much like we never explored everything possible with separate init programs.

Having used Linux on the desktop for some two decades and worked as a Linux sysadmin for a good while I don’t miss the init scripts. My impression is more that a certain cohort wants to pretend that service management is easy by ignoring large amounts of it. It’s easy to write a bad init script that breaks when you really need it, or be out of your depth with more complex cases.

Not to mention the whole conformity by convention thing. Systemd unit files are descriptive and predictable by their nature. So-called init scripts didn’t really have to be scripts, they just usually were, and their arguments and output and behaviour was also unenforced—there’s nothing really stopping you from writing a compiled program that self-daemonizes and place the binary with the init scripts rather than in /bin. Ultimately people who make programs also have to be good at writing init programs with that setup.

So we’d have people doing dumb shit themselves and getting angry at others doing dumb shit. PHP was also pretty popular and full of dumb shit. Lots of “worse is better” to go around.

Ultimately it’s more of the stuff covered in Bryan Cantrill’s Platform as a reflection of values. Some of us value predictability and correctness, others feel it’s a straitjacket. There’s no way of pleasing everyone with the same platform.

And currently the people who want to distribute their own riced-out init programs in bash, perl, php, node.js and so on are SOL. (They can still use them on their own machines.)

By that logic we would still be using horses since technically we don’t -need- cars.

Most of us would be using our feet and transit (and possibly bikes); both our households and our economies would be better off financially and bodily if car use was restricted to goods hauling and some few other uses (not to mention the environment). Mass motorism has turned out to be mostly a way to enrich the auto industry, not our societies, with North America as a warning to the rest of us. (See !fuckcars@lemmy.world for more.)

There are plenty of times where humanity has chased the latest fad without considering the costs & benefits properly. The amount of energy and hardware being blown away on LLMs are another example; same goes for creepto and NFTs.

That said, having a look around for various applications, including terminals, is generally good. If someone finds something that covers their needs but with lower costs, that’s good. And if they find something with a shiny new bell or whistle at exorbitant cost, eh, maybe think twice before choosing it.

Yeah, Rust tries to find as many problems as it can during compilation. It’s great for those of us who want the bugs to be found ahead of release, not great for those who just want something out the door and worry about bugs only after a user reports them.

Different platforms have different values, and that also affects what people consider fun. At the other end of the scale you find the triple-equals languages like js and php, which a lot of people think are fun and normal, but some of us think are so wobbly or sloppy that they’re actually much harder languages than other, stricter languages.

If you value correctness and efficiency, Rust is pretty fun.

I think I’ll stick to alacritty, but options are always fun

Yeah, I’ve experienced that as well. A summer party is often nicer than a winter party too.

Depending on the country you might get some collision with midsummer celebrations though

Idunno, that might be approaching “one day of patchy electricity can change how you view computers vs mechanical typewriters”. Here people would likely use their mobile internet, especially if the company is paying their phone bill.

I’ve been using Fantasque sans mono for a bunch of years now.

Yeah, that’s the correctness focus. Some people dislike it as a straitjacket, some even take it as a personal insult because they see it as a skill issue. They, the good devs, shouldn’t be held back like that (spoiler: they aren’t as good as they think they are).

Personally I like that aspect of Rust, but I also write Python with a typechecker and a loong list of enabled lints in ruff. I can get the happy path done without it, but having just the happy path often isn’t good enough.

Enforced correctness helps a lot with confidence for those of us who know we sometimes make bad assumptions or forget some nuance or detail. But it will be absolutely infuriating for people who can’t stand being told they made an error, even one of omission.

Still remains to be seen if a potential rust ABI can avoid becoming a chain to the wall the way the C++ ABI seems to have become. When a lot of C++ers apparently agree with “I’m tired of paying for an ABI stability I’m not using” it’s not so clear it would really be a boon to Rust.

That said no_std appears to be what people go to for the lean Rust.

And a lot of us are happy not having to juggle shared dependencies, but instead having somewhat fat but self-contained binaries. It’s part of the draw of Go too; fat binaries come up as a way to avoid managing e.g. Python dependencies across OS-es. With Rust and Go you can build just one binary per architecture/libc and be done with it.

The serious answer here likely has several components:

1. Some people and businesses have invested a lot in languages that governments are now trying to deprecate. When someone is told that their assets may be stranding, and please move on to $NEWTHING, they’re likely to get … grumpy. Both they and the government may be correct here, even if they’re at odds—they have different scopes and concerns.
2. Differing values. See e.g. Cantrill’s “Platform as a reflection of values”.

• Rust highly values correctness, which will feel like a straitjacket to a lot of people.
• It also moves as much error detection as it can to the compilation stage, which won’t sit well with people who want to get something out the door ASAP and then find the bugs as they happen.
• So it also encourages tackling complexity early rather than kicking the can down the road, which again isn’t to everyone’s preference.

Socks were invented to be used in sandals, it’s the one true way!

(Typed wearing big woolen socks in birkenstocks)

I think I wouldn’t find it particularly useful, as I’m used to the quasi-programming I can do in a terminal. The shell commands take some time & effort to learn, but once you’re over that hump, being able to extract and compose information is really good. The primary shell tools I’d miss in a gui are |, jq, awk, sed and grep/rg, as well as for, if, while, variables, and having everything in one lightweight window.