undefined

points

[-]

I would not over-read into that doc. In practice, the only missing stuff are extreme edge cases of the type that is actually not consistent between other implementations of bash.

In practice it works great. I haven't seen a failed command in a while

[Disclaimer: I made the thing]

by simonw8 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Incompatibilities don't matter much provided your error messages are actionable - an LLM can hit a problem, read the error message and try again. They'll also remember that solution for the rest of that session.

by gaigalas7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I don't think the current incompatibilities can be worked around.

Also, huge waste of tokens. And the waste is not even worth it, the sandbox seems insufficient.

Again, good luck to the developers. I just don't think it's ready.

by esafak9 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

No, they use it because there's a lot of training material.

pro-tip: vercel's https://agent-browser.dev/ is a great CLI for agent-based browser automation.

by athorax9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Why do you think there is a lot of training data? Could it be because it's stable and virtually unchanged for decades? Hmmm.

by esafak9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Because bash is everywhere. Stability is a separate concern. And we know this because LLMs routinely generate deprecated code for libraries that change a lot.

by gaigalas9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This project runs on all shells, totally portable:

https://github.com/alganet/coral

busybox, bash, zsh, dash, you name it. If smells bourne, it runs. Here's the list: https://github.com/alganet/coral/blob/main/test/matrix#L50 (more than 20 years of compatibility, runs even on bash 3)

It's a great litmus test, that many have passed. Let me know when just-bash is able to run it.

by esafak8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I have no connection to coral or just-bash. Why don't you do it yourself and let us know, since you are familiar with it?

by gaigalas8 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I've been working with the shell long enough that I know just by looking at it.

Anyway, it was rethorical. I was making a point about portability. Scripts we write today run even on ancient versions, and it has been an effort kept by lots of different interpreters (not only bash).

I'm trying to give sane advice here. Re-implementing bash is a herculean task, and some "small incompatibilities" sometimes reveal themselves as deep architectural dead-ends.

by esafak7 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

The project does not list portability as a concern. It's for agent use; they are not trying to re-use existing bash code.

by gaigalas6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Before, you said:

> they use it because there's a lot of training material.

Now, you say:

> they are not trying to re-use existing bash code.

Can't you see how this is a contradiction?