upvote
Note that I didn't say anything about "If it works and gives you the features you require", you added that.

If you remove that from your reply you're on your way to understanding why I don't like an absolute unit of a bash script.

reply
I did yes, got ahead of myself there. I get it.

I'd rather a single unruly page of code to do the whole thing rather than multiple modules that do multiple things half-efficiently that require multiple thought to uncover.

reply
> If it works

It often doesn't work.

> How is this any different of someone including multiple python modules to create the same stack for which probably amount to more lines of code if you were to copy and paste in to a single document.

There's no problem with 1200 lines of code. The problem is 1200 lines of Bash. The difference is that Bash is incredibly awkward and error prone compared to almost every other language out there.

reply
> It often doesn't work.

I suppose my main bash script on BSD, ~400 lines for backup, compilation and other admin tasks including a portable static text/plain web server have never failed me but never tested them interchangeably, so, prone some truth to failure.

I am not disagreeing of course and I would agree, Bash is designed for the system functions and that this is niche. However if it's all you got, eh, go for it.

Systems admin for 15 years and have handled some very hosed systems. Maybe the python binary got hosed and you were really desperate to share your lasagna recipe with your mother and the internet, it does have a purpose. Not ideal, sure.

reply
> However if it's all you got, eh, go for it.

Mercifully, it isn't all we've got!

reply