Bash syntax is anything but simple or logical. Just look at the insane if-statement syntax. Or how the choice of quotes fundamentally changes behavior. Argument parsing, looping, the list goes on.
> Also the choice of quotes changing behavior is a thing in:
In those languages they change what's contained in the string. Not how many strings you get. Or what the strings from that string look like. ($@ being an extreme example)
> @ Expands to the positional parameters, starting from one. When the expansion occurs within double quotes, each parameter expands to a separate word. That is, "$@" is equivalent to "$1" "$2" ... If the double-quoted expansion occurs within a word, the expansion of the first parameter is joined with the beginning part of the original word, and the expansion of the last parameter is joined with the last part of the original word. When there are no positional parameters, "$@" and $@ expand to nothing (i.e., they are removed).
That’s…a lot. I think Bash is interesting in the “I’m glad it works but I detest having to work with it” kind of way. Like, fine if I’m just launching some processes or tail’ing some logs, but I’ve rarely had a time when I had to write an even vaguely complex bash script where I didn’t end up spending most of my time relearning how to do things that should be basic.
Shellcheck was a big game changer at least in terms of learning some of the nuance from a “best practice” standpoint. I also think that the way bash does things is just a little too foreign from the rest of my computing life to be retained.
Complex and bash script should not be in the same sentence.
If a script you have is becoming complex, that’s an hint to use an anemable programming language with proper data types and structures.
Uh, reading a bash script shouldn't be as hard as doing your taxes. Bash syntax has to be simple because bash code is going to be read and reasoned by humans. Reading just a simple if statement in bash syntax requires a TON of knowledge to avoid shooting yourself in the foot. That's a massive failure of usability just to save a couple of keystrokes.
This is like saying "what's wrong with brainfuck??? makes sense to me!" Every syntax can be understood, that does not automatically make them all good ideas.
Bash syntax is the pinnacle of Chesterton's Fence. If you can't articulate why it was done that way, you have no right to remove it. Python would be an absolutely unusable shell language.
I didn't say that there wasn't a reason. I said it was absolute trash to use. It's so bad that the moment I need even the slightest bit of complexity, I will switch away from bash. Can't really say that for any other language.
Over the decades, PostgreSQL, aka Postgres, has grown into the most powerful general-purpose database and has become the de facto standard for developers worldwide. Just Use Postgres! takes a modern look at Postgres, exploring the database’s most up-to-date features for AI, time-series, full-text search, geospatial, and other application workloads.
I'm pretty sure we are in an apple vs android situation, where you give lifetime apple users an android phone, and after a day they report that android is horrid. In reality, they just aren't used to how stuff is done on android.
I think many devs are just in tune with the "nature" of Claude, and run aground easier when trying to use gemini or Chatgpt. This also explains why we get these perplexing mixed signals from different devs.
There are some clear objective signals that aren’t just user preference. I shelled out the $250 for Gemini’s top tier and am profoundly disappointed. I had forgotten that loops were still a thing. I’ve hit this multiple times in Gemini CLI, and in different projects. It gets stuck in a loop (as in the exact same, usually nonsense, message over and over) and the automated loop detection stops the whole operation. It also stops in the middle of an operation very frequently. I don’t hit either of these in Claude Code or Codex.
There certainly is some user preference, but the deal breakers are flat out shortcomings that other tools solved (in AI terms) long ago. I haven’t dealt with agent loops since March with any other tool.
I'm constantly floored with how well claude-cli works and gemini-cli stumbled on something simple the first time I used it and Gemini's 3 Pro release availability was just bad.
Agreed. Been using Claude Code daily for the past year and Codex as a fall back when Claude gets stuck. Codex has two problems: it Windows support sucks and it's way to "mission driven" vs the collaborative Claude. Gemini CLI falls somewhere in the middle, has some seriously cool features (Ctrl+X to edit prompt in notepad) and it's web research capability is actually good.
I found the post you're replying to helpful (and it made me laugh): I've come across the abbreviation POLA many times, with its non-jokey meaning "principle of least authority". I've also come across "principle of least astonishment" (Larry Wall or some other Perl contributor maybe?) but I'd never noticed that was (presumably?) a jokey reference to principle of least authority - I guess because I came across the joke first back was I was barely a programmer and I've never seen it abbreviated.
But maybe it never was a reference to POLA proper - "principle of least privilege" is more widespread I think, outside of the object capability community. And maybe "least astonishment" came first!
