[goku12]

> if you're not a huge fan of the typical stringly-typed shells.

What aspect of the other shells qualify them as 'stringly-typed'? Shells seem quite happy piping raw binary data, and there are commands that can deal with binary streams (like wc). The shell also doesn't seem to do anything with the data, unless specifically asked to do so (eval, backticks, etc). (genuinely ignorant and curious).

[Kinrany]

"Stringly typed" is usually used as a derogatory term for the alternative to strong typing, which often looks like manipulating raw strings when higher level code would have either better error handling or less boilerplate.

In this sense, dealing with raw bytes is worse.

There is no reason we can't use CLIs that provide higher level operations, but there's just not enough standardization.

[lynx23]

I think they are refering to the fact that variables are always strings. You can write stuff like i=0;i=$(( i + 1 ) which looks like you are dealing with integers, but in reality, the shell only deals with strings.

[goku12]

That makes much more sense. I was wondering how shells are classified under type system theory.

[kaba0]

You know those status bars in dwm and similar window managers? Those are usually generated from a pipeline outputting a line every few seconds or so.

To make it display something as trivial as the frequency of your CPU, the network speed, etc, you have to randomly parse some ad-hoc, program-dependent format that may be locale-dependent! If these could speak a proper language, one could just take the value of this field/object/element and be done with it.