• Laser@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Not sure I’d call what bash has functions. They’re closer to subroutines in Basic than functions in other languages, as in you can’t return a value from them (they can only return their exit code, and you can capture their stdout and stderr). But even then, they are full subshells. It’s one of the reasons I don’t really like Bash, you’re forced into globally or at least broadly-scoped variables. Oh, and I have no clue right now how to find where in your pipe you got a non-null exit code.

    It’s not a big problem for simple scripting, but it makes things cumbersome once you try to do more.

    • SlurpingPus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      43 minutes ago

      Functions are definitely not subshells in Bash, seeing as anything modifying the environment, like pyenv and such, is implemented as functions instead of scripts — specifically because functions are run in the same shell instance.

      Unless ‘subshell’ means something in the vein of ‘like a new shell, but not really’.

    • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I really like bash when dealing with even somewhat advanced scripting. Like the 300 LOC scraper I have written over the past two days which horribly parses HTML files using grep | sed.

      It’s genuinely so much more fun to do this with Bash than, say, Python. I have once written a scraper using Beautifulsoup and I have no desire to do so ever again.

      Honestly, only Haskell manages to beat Bash in how satisfying it feels when you manage to get something working well.