Explanation for newbies:

  • Shell is the programming language that you use when you open a terminal on linux or mac os. Well, actually “shell” is a family of languages with many different implementations (bash, dash, ash, zsh, ksh, fish, …)

  • Writing programs in shell (called “shell scripts”) is a harrowing experience because the language is optimized for interactive use at a terminal, not writing extensive applications

  • The two lines in the meme change the shell’s behavior to be slightly less headache-inducing for the programmer:

    • set -euo pipefail is the short form of the following three commands:
      • set -e: exit on the first command that fails, rather than plowing through ignoring all errors
      • set -u: treat references to undefined variables as errors
      • set -o pipefail: If a command piped into another command fails, treat that as an error
    • export LC_ALL=C tells other programs to not do weird things depending on locale. For example, it forces seq to output numbers with a period as the decimal separator, even on systems where coma is the default decimal separator (russian, dutch, etc.).
  • The title text references “posix”, which is a document that standardizes, among other things, what features a shell must have. Posix does not require a shell to implement pipefail, so if you want your script to run on as many different platforms as possible, then you cannot use that feature.

      • Derpgon@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        It is different in spoken form, written form (chat) and written as a post (like here).

        In person, you get a reaction almost immediately. Written as a short chat, you also get a reaction. But like this is more of an accessibility thing rather than the joke not being funny. You know, like those text descriptions of an image (usually for memes).

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I really recommend that if you haven’t, that you look at the Bash’s man page.

        It’s just amazing.

          • marcos@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’m divided between saying it’s really great or that it should be a book and the man page should be something else.

            Good thing man has search, bad thing a lot of people don’t know about that.

  • Badabinski@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 months ago

    set -euo pipefail is, in my opinion, an antipattern. This page does a really good job of explaining why. pipefail is occasionally useful, but should be toggled on and off as needed, not left on. IMO, people should just write shell the way they write go, handling every command that could fail individually. it’s easy if you write a die function like this:

    die () {
      message="$1"; shift
      return_code="${1:-1}"
      printf '%s\n' "$message" 1>&2
      exit "$return_code"
    }
    
    # we should exit if, say, cd fails
    cd /tmp || die "Failed to cd /tmp while attempting to scrozzle foo $foo"
    # downloading something? handle the error. Don't like ternary syntax? use if
    if ! wget https://someheinousbullshit.com/"$foo"; then
      die "failed to get unscrozzled foo $foo"
    fi
    

    It only takes a little bit of extra effort to handle the errors individually, and you get much more reliable shell scripts. To replace -u, just use shellcheck with your editor when writing scripts. I’d also highly recommend https://mywiki.wooledge.org as a resource for all things POSIX shell or Bash.

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’ve been meaning to learn how to avoid using pipefail, thanks for the info!

    • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      After tens of thousands of bash lines written, I have to disagree. The article seems to argue against use of -e due to unpredictable behavior; while that might be true, I’ve found having it in my scripts is more helpful than not.

      Bash is clunky. -euo pipefail is not a silver bullet but it does improve the reliability of most scripts. Expecting the writer to check the result of each command is both unrealistic and creates a lot of noise.

      When using this error handling pattern, most lines aren’t even for handling them, they’re just there to bubble it up to the caller. That is a distraction when reading a piece of code, and a nuisense when writing it.

      For the few times that I actually want to handle the error (not just pass it up), I’ll do the “or” check. But if the script should just fail, -e will do just fine.

      • esa@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Yeah, while -e has a lot of limitations, it shouldn’t be thrown out with the bathwater. The unofficial strict mode can still de-weird bash to an extent, and I’d rather drop bash altogether when they’re insufficient, rather than try increasingly hard to work around bash’s weirdness. (I.e. I’d throw out the bathwater, baby and the family that spawned it at that point.)

      • Badabinski@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        I was tempted for years to use it as an occasional try/catch, but learning Go made me realize that exceptions are amazing and I miss them, but that it is possible (but occasionally hideously tedious) to write software without them. Like, I feel like anyone who has written Go competently (i.e. they handle every returned err on an individual or aggregated basis) should be able to write relatively error-handled shell. There are still the billion other footguns built directly into bash that will destroy hopes and dreams, but handling errors isn’t too bad if you just have a little die function and the determination to use it.

        • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          “There are still the billion other footguns built directly into bash that will destroy hopes and dreams, but”

          That’s well put. I might put that at the start of all of my future comments about bash in the future.

    • Aquila@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Putting or die “blah blah” after every line in your script seems much less elegant than op’s solution

      • Badabinski@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        The issue with set -e is that it’s hideously broken and inconsistent. Let me copy the examples from the wiki I linked.


        Or, “so you think set -e is OK, huh?”

        Exercise 1: why doesn’t this example print anything?

        #!/usr/bin/env bash
        set -e
        i=0
        let i++
        echo "i is $i"
        

        Exercise 2: why does this one sometimes appear to work? In which versions of bash does it work, and in which versions does it fail?

        #!/usr/bin/env bash
        set -e
        i=0
        ((i++))
        echo "i is $i"
        

        Exercise 3: why aren’t these two scripts identical?

        #!/usr/bin/env bash
        set -e
        test -d nosuchdir && echo no dir
        echo survived 
        
        #!/usr/bin/env bash
        set -e
        f() { test -d nosuchdir && echo no dir; }
        f
        echo survived
        

        Exercise 4: why aren’t these two scripts identical?

        set -e
        f() { test -d nosuchdir && echo no dir; }
        f
        echo survived
        
        set -e
        f() { if test -d nosuchdir; then echo no dir; fi; }
        f
        echo survived
        

        Exercise 5: under what conditions will this fail?

        set -e
        read -r foo < configfile
        

        And now, back to your regularly scheduled comment reply.

        set -e would absolutely be more elegant if it worked in a way that was easy to understand. I would be shouting its praises from my rooftop if it could make Bash into less of a pile of flaming plop. Unfortunately , set -e is, by necessity, a labyrinthian mess of fucked up hacks.

        Let me leave you with a allegory about set -e copied directly from that same wiki page. It’s too long for me to post it in this comment, so I’ll respond to myself.

        • Badabinski@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          From https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/105

          Once upon a time, a man with a dirty lab coat and long, uncombed hair showed up at the town police station, demanding to see the chief of police. “I’ve done it!” he exclaimed. “I’ve built the perfect criminal-catching robot!”

          The police chief was skeptical, but decided that it might be worth the time to see what the man had invented. Also, he secretly thought, it might be a somewhat unwise move to completely alienate the mad scientist and his army of hunter robots.

          So, the man explained to the police chief how his invention could tell the difference between a criminal and law-abiding citizen using a series of heuristics. “It’s especially good at spotting recently escaped prisoners!” he said. “Guaranteed non-lethal restraints!”

          Frowning and increasingly skeptical, the police chief nevertheless allowed the man to demonstrate one robot for a week. They decided that the robot should patrol around the jail. Sure enough, there was a jailbreak a few days later, and an inmate digging up through the ground outside of the prison facility was grabbed by the robot and carried back inside the prison.

          The surprised police chief allowed the robot to patrol a wider area. The next day, the chief received an angry call from the zookeeper. It seems the robot had cut through the bars of one of the animal cages, grabbed the animal, and delivered it to the prison.

          The chief confronted the robot’s inventor, who asked what animal it was. “A zebra,” replied the police chief. The man slapped his head and exclaimed, “Curses! It was fooled by the black and white stripes! I shall have to recalibrate!” And so the man set about rewriting the robot’s code. Black and white stripes would indicate an escaped inmate UNLESS the inmate had more than two legs. Then it should be left alone.

          The robot was redeployed with the updated code, and seemed to be operating well enough for a few days. Then on Saturday, a mob of children in soccer clothing, followed by their parents, descended on the police station. After the chaos subsided, the chief was told that the robot had absconded with the referee right in the middle of a soccer game.

          Scowling, the chief reported this to the scientist, who performed a second calibration. Black and white stripes would indicate an escaped inmate UNLESS the inmate had more than two legs OR had a whistle on a necklace.

          Despite the second calibration, the police chief declared that the robot would no longer be allowed to operate in his town. However, the news of the robot had spread, and requests from many larger cities were pouring in. The inventor made dozens more robots, and shipped them off to eager police stations around the nation. Every time a robot grabbed something that wasn’t an escaped inmate, the scientist was consulted, and the robot was recalibrated.

          Unfortunately, the inventor was just one man, and he didn’t have the time or the resources to recalibrate EVERY robot whenever one of them went awry. The robot in Shangri-La was recalibrated not to grab a grave-digger working on a cold winter night while wearing a ski mask, and the robot in Xanadu was recalibrated not to capture a black and white television set that showed a movie about a prison break, and so on. But the robot in Xanadu would still grab grave-diggers with ski masks (which it turns out was not common due to Xanadu’s warmer climate), and the robot in Shangri-La was still a menace to old televisions (of which there were very few, the people of Shangri-La being on the average more wealthy than those of Xanadu).

          So, after a few years, there were different revisions of the criminal-catching robot in most of the major cities. In some places, a clever criminal could avoid capture by wearing a whistle on a string around the neck. In others, one would be well-advised not to wear orange clothing in certain rural areas, no matter how close to the Harvest Festival it was, unless one also wore the traditional black triangular eye-paint of the Pumpkin King.

          Many people thought, “This is lunacy!” But others thought the robots did more good than harm, all things considered, and so in some places the robots are used, while in other places they are shunned.

          The end.

            • Badabinski@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              No worries! Bash was my first language, and I still unaccountably love it after 15 years. I hate it and say mean things about it, but I’m usually pleased when I get to write some serious Bash.

        • pivot_root@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          Exercise 6:

          set -e
          f() { false; echo survived; }
          if ! f; then :; fi
          

          That one was fun to learn.


          Even with all the jank and unreliability, I think set -e does still have some value as a last resort for preventing unfortunate accidents. As long as you don’t use it for implicit control flow, it usually (exercise 6 notwithstanding) does what it needs to do and fails early when some command unexpectedly returns an error.

  • tetris11@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    My only issue is -u. How do you print help text if your required parameters are always filled. There’s no way to test for -z if the shell bails on the first line.

    Edit: though I guess you could initialise your vars with bad defaults, and test for those.

    • esa@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago
      #!/bin/bash
      set -euo pipefail
      
      if [[ -z "${1:-}" ]]
      then
        echo "we need an argument!" >&2
        exit 1
      fi
      
      • rumba@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        God I love bash. There’s always something to learn.

        my logical steps

        • #! yup
        • if sure!
        • [[ -z makes sense
        • ${1:-} WHAT IN SATANS UNDERPANTS… parameter expansion I think… reads docs … default value! shit that’s nice.

        it’s like buying a really simple generic car then getting excited because it actually has a spare and cupholders.

        • esa@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yeah, there’s also a subtle difference between ${1:-} and ${1-}: The first substitutes if 1 is unset or ""; the second only if 1 is unset. So possibly ${foo-} is actually the better to use for a lot of stuff, if the empty string is a valid value. There’s a lot to bash parameter expansion, and it’s all punctuation, which ups the line noise-iness of your scripts.

          I don’t find it particularly legible or memorable; plus I’m generally not a fan of the variable amount of numbered arguments rather than being able to specify argument numbers and names like we are in practically every other programming language still in common use.

  • smeg@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Shell is great, but if you’re using it as a programming language then you’re going to have a bad time. It’s great for scripting, but if you find yourself actually programming in it then save yourself the headache and use an actual language!

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Alpine linux, one of the most popular distros to use inside docker containers (and arguably good for desktop, servers, and embedded) is held together by shell scripts, and it’s doing just fine. The installer, helper commands, and init scripts are all written for busybox sh. But I guess that falls under “scripting” by your definition.

      • smeg@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        No clear line, but to me a script is tying together other programs that you run, those programs themselves are the programs. I guess it’s a matter of how complex the logic is too.

        • panicnow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m so used to using powershell to handle collections and pipelines that I find I want it for small scripts on Mac. For instance, I was using ffmpeg to alter a collection of files on my Mac recently. I found it super simple to use Powershell to handle the logic. I could have used other tools, but I didn’t find anything about it terrible.

  • blaue_Fledermaus@mstdn.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’m glad powershell is cross-platform nowadays. It’s a bit saner.

    Better would be to leave the 1970s and never interact with a terminal again…

    • lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Quick, how do I do for i in $(find . -iname '*.pdf' -mtime -30); do convert -density 300 ${i} ${i}.jpeg; done in a GUI, again?

      • bradd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago
        $time = (get-date).adddays(-30)
        gci -file -filter *.pdf `
          | ? { $_.lastwritetime -gt $time } `
          | % { convert -density 300 $_.fullname $($_.fullname + ".jpg") }
        

        🤷

          • bradd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            I missed where the person you replied to said to never use the terminal again, now your comment makes perfect sense. I thought you were conflating the preference for powershell with windows and therefor more GUI.

            My bad, and I completely agree with you, if I had to give up CLI or GUI it would be GUI hands down no competition at all, I would die without CLI.

    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Better would be to leave the 1970s and never interact with a terminal again…

      I’m still waiting for someone to come up with a better alternative. And once someone does come up with something better, it will be another few decades of waiting for it to catch on. Terminal emulation is dumb and weird, but there’s just no better solution that’s also compatible with existing software. Just look at any IDE as an example: visual studio, code blocks, whatever. Thousands of hours put into making all those fancy buttons menus and GUIs, and still the only feature that is worth using is the built-in terminal emulator which you can use to run a real text editor like vim or emacs.

    • ccunning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m a former (long long ago) Linux admin and a current heavy (but not really deep) powershell user.

      The .net-ification of *nix just seems bonkers to me.

      Does it really work that well?

      • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The .net-ification of *nix just seems bonkers to me.

        It IS bonkers. As a case study, compare the process of setting up a self-hosted runner in gitlab vs github.

        Gitlab does everything The Linux Way. You spin up a slim docker container based on Alpine, pass it the API key, and you’re done. Nice and simple.

        Github, being owned by Microsoft, does everything The Microsoft way. The documentation mentions nothing of containers, you’re just meant to run the runner natively, essentially giving Microsoft and anyone else in the repo a reverse shell into your machine. Lovely. Microsoft then somehow managed to make their runner software (reminder: whose entire job consists of pulling a git repo, parsing a yaml file, and running some shell commands) depend on fucking dotnet and a bunch of other bullshit. You’re meant to install it using a shitty setup.sh script that does that stupid thing with detecting what distro you’re on and calling the native package manager to install dependencies. Which of course doesn’t work for shit for anyone who’s not on debain or fedora because those are the only distro’s they’ve bothered with. So you’re either stuck setting up dotnet on your system, or trying to manually banish this unholy abomination into a docker container, which is gonna end up twice the size of gitlab’s pre-made Alpine container thanks to needing glibc to run dotnet (and also full gnu coreutils for some fucking reason)

        Bloat is just microsoft’s way of doing things. They see unused resources, and they want to use them. Keep microsoft out of linux.

      • nesc@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        What type of .net-ification occurs on *nix? I am current linux “admin” and there is close to 0 times where I’ve seen powershell not on windows. Maybe in some microsoft specific hell-scape it is more common, but it’s hard to imagine that there are people that can accept a “shell” that takes 5-10 seconds to start. There are apps written in c# but they aren’t all that common?

  • Lightfire228@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    just use python instead.

    • wrap around subprocess.run(), to call to system utils
    • use pathlib.Path for file paths and reading/writing to files
    • use shutil.which() to resolve utilities from your Path env var

    Here’s an example of some python i use to launch vscode (and terminals, but that requires dbus)

    
    from pathlib import Path
    from shutil import which
    from subprocess import run
    
    def _run(cmds: list[str], cwd=None):
        p = run(cmds, cwd=cwd)
    
        # raises an error if return code is non-zero
        p.check_returncode()
    
        return p
    
    VSCODE = which('code')
    SUDO   = which('sudo')
    DOCKER = which('docker')
    
    proj_dir = Path('/path/to/repo')
    
    docker_compose = proj_dir / 'docker/'
    
    windows = [
      proj_dir / 'code',
      proj_dir / 'more_code',
      proj_dir / 'even_more_code/subfolder',
    ]
    for w in windows:
      _run([VSCODE, w])
    
    _run([SUDO, DOCKER, 'compose', 'up', '-d'], cwd=docker_compose)
    
    • renzev@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      No, sorry. I’m a python dev and I love python, but there’s no way I’m using it for scripting. Trying to use python as a shell language just has you passing data across Popen calls with a sea of .decode and .encode. You’re doing the same stuff you would be doing in shell, but with a less concise syntax. Literally all of python’s benefits (classes, types, lists) are negated because all of the tools you’re using when writing scripts are processing raw text anyway. Not to mention the version incompatibility thing. You use an f-string in a spicy way once, and suddenly your “script” is incompatible with half of all python installations out there, which is made worse by the fact that almost every distro has a very narrow selection of python versions available on their package manager. With shell you have the least common denominator of posix sh. With Python, some distros rush ahead to the latest release, while other hang on to ancient versions. Even print("hello world") isn’t guaranteed to work, since some LTS ubuntu versions still have python pointing to python2.

      The quickest cure for thinking that Python “solves” the problems of shell is to first learn good practices of shell, and then trying to port an existing shell script to python. That’ll change your opinion quickly enough.