Re: proposed BASH_SOURCE_PATH

[Oğuz]

On Mon, Jul 8, 2024 at 11:16 AM Martin D Kealey <martin@kurahaupo.gen.nz> wrote:
> The only things that the shell has going for it is that it's widely deployed 
> and stable over the long term.
> Otherwise it's a terrible language, and any sane programmer should avoid it 
> entirely:
> This has already been happening, and Bash is >this< close to become an 
> irrelevant historical footnote.
> If you modify Bash in ways that are not backwards compatible, you're then 
> writing in a new language that no new project is likely to adopt.

These are just your opinions.

> That's what "worth breaking existing code" costs in reality: other people's 
> stuff breaks when they've had zero advance notice, because they aren't the 
> people deciding to upgrade Bash.

This I agree with, but personally I don't think the change we discuss
here is that big.

> PPS: In my opinion, the only hope for Bash to continue to exist in the long 
> term is for it to either:
> (a) absolutely guarantee stability, forsaking all new features; or
> (b) adopt a full suite of features that make it into a "normal" programming 
> language, including: support for modules written for different versions of 
> Bash to safely cohabitate in a single script; lexical scoping with 
> namespaces; being able to store references in variables, including some kinds 
> of handles for filedescriptors, functions, processes, and process groups; 
> some mechanism to perform rewriting during parsing (going well beyond what 
> aliases can do) so that new features can be proposed and implemented in shell 
> before being implemented in the C core. And all of that while not breaking 
> code that doesn't ask for these new features.

You're wasting your breath.