undefined

points

[-]

Yes, someone who has no idea how to use their shell and tries to get around by making arbitrary guesses will suffer. This is true for bash as well. It's no reason to kill yourself immediately.

by amiga3863 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I put it to you that a "shell" that does not natively run the executable programs you type is a non-starter as a shell.

I would be ready for the window if I had to type

    import subprocess; p = subprocess.run(args=["curl", "-s", "http://example.com/"], capture_output=True); fh = open("output", "wb"); fh.write(p.stdout); fh.close()

rather than

    curl -s http://example.com/ >output

There are certainly attempts to create a shell that's powered by Python and allows the Python language into it, but one could not "largely replace bash with the Python REPL". Only people who didn't want a shell in the first place would think that reasonable.

by lynndotpy36 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

I think we're talking past each other. You are largely not understanding the point I'm saying. I agree that Python, as a shell and scripting language, will have different ergonomics and tradeoffs compared to Bash.

The point I am making is that, of the listed languages, Python is far more comparable to Bash than the others. Suppose you had no choice but to use one of the following executables in place of /usr/bin/bash

- go - gcc - rustc - node - python

You would choose Python, of course. Plausibly node, but certainly not any of the other three.