[kubanczyk]

Here is a novel idea.

I am allowed to call 'mv' or 'cp' binaries from bash.

I am also allowed to call 'mv' or 'cp' binaries from python with subprocess!

(Edit: bad example binaries, 'df' or 'tar' would be probably better.)

I must choose not to install bash libraries for a bash script beyond builtins.

I can choose not to install python libraries beyond builtins.

It becomes a really simple tradeoff.

Nobody forces you to step out of python's stdlib. No extra dependencies. And you can still reap benefits of a proper programming language.

[stormbrew]

It's worth noting that there are still a shocking number of production machines in the world that don't have stable installations of python3.x yet.

[pmiller2]

So? Python 2.x is just as good for this, and is pretty widely available. Besides, I don't write scripts for every production machine in the world, just a subset that I have access to.

[stormbrew]

So, a bash script written ten years ago probably still works on any version of bash since then.

A python script written ten years ago probably doesn't even parse on python3.0, let alone python3.6 (because there have been backwards incompatible changes since 3.0 even!).

And that's also true vice versa.

So like, this is to the point that there's some "reasonable subset" of python you can use to make it portable (ie. no external packages so you don't need to worry about pip vs. setuptools or venvs or whatever, let alone whether they'll build). I'm asserting that there is not.

[LinuxBender]

Not too long ago I discovered that a tiny temporary shell script I gave to a team to validate Akamai cache was still being used nine plus years later. It was supposed to be a short term work around until the UI team created a proper validation. They never did and somehow my script kept working for almost a decade. The only reason I found out was due to a minor change in our UI that broke the manifest lookup url pattern.

[pmiller2]

Again, so? Maybe you should update your scripts more than once every 10 years?

[fillest]

It is OK to call whatever one needs actually - just minimize the usage of Bash language features (Python provides most of them). It is not complicated and requires no dependencies, here's a self-contained helper: https://gist.github.com/fillest/8d64f8fa0cdb1745bfc9c683cf39...

[imiric]

Great, would that work with pipes and redirections too? At that point you might as well use sh[1] which is a more advanced abstraction. My issue with these approaches is that you'll inevitably hit a bug or limitation where just using a shell language would've been easier to maintain and more portable.

Python has its uses, but replacing shell scripts is not one of them IMO. It it was then the problem didn't need to be a shell script to begin with (doesn't shell out often, needs complex data structures, etc.).

[1]: https://amoffat.github.io/sh/

[shaklee3]

Python's way of executing a command is somewhat of a nightmare. There are many, many ways to do the same thing, and some are safer than others. Some are better for capturing output, while others are better for just executing and getting a return code.