if anyone tells you that a FOSS technology is “really simple”, “intuitive”, or “easy to learn” that is 100% cope. so far I’ve heard this about:
and the opposite has been true every time. I really wish FOSS people would be more honest with themselves and others about how arcane most FOSS is
@kasdeya things which are not “really simple” or “intuitive” under any circumstances
it needs years of experience or study as a baseline requirement for anything related to those things to be intuitive. even then, it’s possible to spend those years only learning a specific facet of computer science which doesn’t overlap with another thing you’re trying to learn
@foxysen @kasdeya it’s not good, but you can look into POSIX shell rather than bash as a stop gap until you find something you like. it’s available where ever bash is available and doesn’t have most of the most ridiculous parts
that or just pick up an interpreted language which is widely available (like python) and write in that
@rowan @foxysen lol that completely makes sense tbh. I was never able to learn how its quirks work (especially quoting a string - holy shit are there a lot of footguns when quoting a string. also it is unbelievably weird and complicated to have a conditional lol) but I imagine after you’ve learned that it’s probably pretty effortless to get something simple working quickly
@kasdeya On the other hand most Haskellers I know (including myself) tell people that said programming language has both an elevated skill floor and the ceiling is waaaaay out there. Which means a beginner will have a hard time in most codebases just as well. It doesn't exactly help that the functional programming paradigm is not very popular to begin with, and Haskell is very purely so.
What do we win? We'd like more Haskell friends, but I fear we won't be winning many with this track record... But at least we are honest about it.
@fargate I really appreciate the honesty tbh. I wasn’t able to keep learning Rust because of everyone’s attitude about how “easy” it is, so at least if I had tried to learn Haskell instead that wouldn’t’ve been a problem, which would’ve made me more likely to keep going. so that’s something!
@kasdeya @foxysen bash makes it easy* to make a quick** script that solves† a problem‡ ( . . . badly)
*: assuming decades of prior experience
**: it may have taken longer, you'll just not remember all that because initial progress feels fast followed by days of debugging
†: full solution still pending, but it works Well Enough™
‡: problem scope must fit preexisting constraints, should not be used for all problems
@foxysen @kasdeya Both, yes. The shell is just much more consistent in its abstractions, and there is no "quote hell". It's not posix compliant, but that's never posed a problem for me.
and it's actually an acronym! it stand for the "friendly interactive shell"!
I had not thought of giving tux a fish to shell xD
<><