[j16sdiz]

> This doesn't sound that horrific to me. It's the classic Unix approach of building small tools that do one thing well, and composing them in novel ways to solve problems.

This works really well if your problem can be solved in one or two liners.

It go bad very quickly when, say, you have two CSV files and want to join them the sql-way. In sed, you have to use positional variables and think about shell escaping. In perl, you can at least name those variables and use \Q

[imiric]

> This works really well if your problem can be solved in one or two liners.

My personal comfort threshold is around the 100-line mark. It's even possible to write maintainable shell scripts up to 500 lines, but it mostly depends on the problem you're trying to solve, and the discipline of the programmer to follow best practices (use sane defaults, ShellCheck, etc.).

> It go bad very quickly when, say, you have two CSV files and want to join them the sql-way.

In that case we're talking about structured data, and, yeah, Perl or Python would be easier to work with. That said, depending on the complexity of the CSV, you can still go a long way with plain Bash with IFS/read(1) or tr(1) to split CSV columns. This wouldn't be very robust, but there are tools that handle CSV specifically[1], which can be composed in a shell script just fine.

So it's always a balancing act of being productive quickly with a shell script, or reaching out for a programming language once the tools aren't a good fit, or maintenance becomes an issue.

[1]: https://miller.readthedocs.io/

[hnlmorg]

You’re discussing modern tooling in a conversation about early UNIX tooling. Back in the period being discussed, even ‘read’ was less functional. Ksh introduced a lot of the stuff we now take for granted, some of which wasn’t even available until the Ksh93 (long after Perl was released). Bash itself is a younger project than Perl. Albeit not by much.

[imiric]

Fair point. I'm not arguing that Perl wasn't an improvement back then, but that the approach of composing Unix tools is not inherently bad. And as the shell ecosystem evolved since then, and more capable programming languages appeared, Perl has been left by the wayside as a historical relic, rather than the replacement of Unix tools that Wall envisioned.

So I don't disagree that it was needed back then, but it's important to mention the modern context it struggles to exist in.

[hnlmorg]

Perl is still a commonly used tool chain. It is far from being a “historic relic”.

I agree that there’s nothing wrong with composing UNIX tools. I mean, that was one of its key selling points. if you watch any early promo videos for UNIX you’ll see them talk heavily about the composability of the command line and shell scripting. It wasn’t an accident — it was designed that way.

The point of the conversation wasn’t to say that one shouldn’t write shell scripts, it was just to say that there was a massive and unfilled gulf between what was easy to do in Ksh, awk and sed, and what could be done in C.

[mulmen]

> It go bad very quickly when, say, you have two CSV files and want to join them the sql-way.

Then just put them in a database and write a simple SQL query. If you use Perl it’s really very simple to do.

[yesbabyyes]

> It go bad very quickly when, say, you have two CSV files and want to join them the sql-way.

That sounds like a perfect use case for `join`.