[MisterTea]

Unfortunately your joke has wooshed over quite a few heads but what you say is true. The shell should be one of the most reliable parts of your operating system. Why on earth would you NOT trust the primary interface of your OS? Makes no sense.

[wmf]

The shell itself may be reliable but shell scripts are notorious for security issues.

[IshKebab]

I'm not sure I follow you but it wasn't a joke. Shell scripts are notoriously error-prone. I absolutely do not trust shell script authors to get everything right.

Also the shell isn't even "the primary interface of your OS". For Linux that's the Linux ABI, or arguably libc.

Unless you meant "human interface", in which case also no - KDE is the primary interface of my OS.

[MisterTea]

> I'm not sure I follow you but it wasn't a joke. Shell scripts are notoriously error-prone. I absolutely do not trust shell script authors to get everything right.

This is an extremely naive take as are the rest of your comments. Any language in the wrong hands is error prone.

[IshKebab]

> Any language in the wrong hands is error prone.

Talk about naive!

[linksnapzz]

Feel free to implement system utilities in whichever language you feel will completely eliminate the possibility of bugs.

I wait with bated breath.

[IshKebab]

"error-prone" means bugs are more likely than the alternatives. It doesn't mean that the alternatives completely eliminate the possibility of bugs. Come on.

[linksnapzz]

I wonder what the tally is for "things posted to HN that'll replace bash/ksh/zsh in every respect REAL Soon Now". It's a genre of post unto itself.