6 ms·
> I don’t think it’s fair to compare a workflow that is designed for sed/awk. If your position is that we should not be writing bash but instead Python, then y
by necheffa 2y ago
> I don’t think it’s fair to compare a workflow that is designed for sed/awk.
If your position is that we should not be writing bash but instead Python, then yes, it is absolutely fair.
> the benefit of which is that I can actually read it.
And you couldn't read the command pipeline I put together?
> What happens if you want to retry a line if it fails?
Put the thing you want to do in a function, execute it on a line, if the sub-shell returns a failure status, execute it again. It isn't like bash does not have if-statements or while-loops.
- maccard 2y agoMy point is that if you take a snippet designed to be terse in bash, it’s an unfair advantage to bash. There are dozens of countless examples in python which will show the opposite > And you couldn't read the command pipeline I put together? It took me multiple goes, but the equivalent in python I can understand in one go. > Put the thing you want to do in a function, execute it on a line, if the sub-shell returns a failure status, execute it again. It isn't like bash does not have if-statements or while-loops. But when you do that, it all of a sudden looks a lot more like the python code