No mother, no bride, no kingApr 12
Shell scripts
Should have extensions
63%
Should not have extensions
37%
Poll ended at .
Show threadSteve PurcellApr 12
@RosaCtrl No extension, IMO, if it has a shebang -- we don't suffix other executables for end users with the language name, e.g. "blah.rust".
Show threadNo mother, no bride, no kingApr 12
@sanityinc but then we could do the same for Python and Ruby right? Where do we stop? Or we don’t?
Show threadsamir, witch in training
@RosaCtrl @sanityinc I remove extensions from Python and Ruby scripts if they’re intended to be directly executable.
Apr 12 at 1:19pmWeb
Show threadSteve PurcellApr 12
@samir @RosaCtrl Yes, absolutely. The idea is that if you rewrite a program from one (scripting or otherwise) language to another, you don't have to change other parts of your system that refer to it. Language is an implementation detail. If you have bash libraries that need to be sourced by others, then they can have a suffix, just like a .py module would.
Show threadNo mother, no bride, no kingApr 12
@sanityinc @samir this is exactly why I’m wondering… I started to rewrite some scripts in Fish just to see and gosh renaming