For me this is way too much to invest in Bash. Any non-trivial utilities should be written in a real programming language when possible, especially when they are used in a context where they are likely to accrete complexity over time. I’m sure there are good use cases for complex Bash programs, but we should be reaching for something with less footguns by default.

(Shellcheck is an amazing utility and I use it for all Bash that I write.)

What is? Did I suggest anyone write complex Bash programs?

Shellcheck is amazing. As I suggested in the previous post, I use it for most of my own shell scripts/projects, especially stuff I intend to release. But, because shell and Bash are weird and full of pitfalls, I think it's worth making sure people know you can't just Shellcheck-and-ship.

I think his nitpick was you promoting weird bash tricks. They're neat to use but usually a pain for someone else to maintain, as a general rule, don't use them, don't try to be clever unless you're 100% sure that it's code you'll be the only one to see (which can rarely be guaranteed).

What would you suggest for emdedded systems?

lua, all day every day. It’s well understood, slim and plays very nicely with C which is how most embedded dev is done.

> and there's a lot of power/potential in some of the weird stuff Shellcheck walls off.

Can you give an example? Something Shellcheck warns you away from but which, if you used it, would be better (more expressive / more powerful / more whatever) than a shellcheck-approved solution?

Intentional word-splitting is a common one. So, for example:

    extract_nix_version(){
      echo "$3"
    }
    
    get_nix_version(){
      # shellcheck disable=SC2046
      extract_nix_version $(nix --version)
    }
    
    $ nix --version
    nix (Nix) 2.3.4
    
    $ get_nix_version
    2.3.4

This gets the information without another external utility (grep, cut, sed, awk...)

It's well-past bedtime, so for now I'm just leaving the first one I can think of (it's top-of-mind since I Shellchecked it in the last couple weeks... :])

  >    get_nix_version(){
  >      # shellcheck disable=SC2046
  >      extract_nix_version $(nix --version)
  >    }

You might do something like:

  get_nix_version(){
      local IFS=' '
      extract_nix_version $(nix --version)
  }

if you want set "IFS=$'\n'" globally, and still be able split on space "locally".

Edit: Still needs the "# shellcheck disable=SC2046" stanza, though

It's a little contrived in this case, but another common example is a related suggestion for `read -r`:

    get_nix_version_parts(){
      local major minor patch
      # shellcheck disable=SC2034,SC2162
      IFS="." read major minor patch < <(get_nix_version)
      local -p
    }

    $ get_nix_version_parts
    major=2
    minor=3
    patch=4

Using -r there works fine for me, though your SC2034 complaint is valid, in that it essentially prevents from you from using a very specific built in formatter provided by "local -p".

This feels like a rare case, and I'd have no problem doing the "disable=SC2034" there, but I'd add a note explaining why.

Even then, one could make an argument (I think I would, actually) that an explicit printf is clearer and more robust. For example, it gives you more control over the formatting, and it doesn't introduce implicit coupling between the output of "local -p" and our function, which in theory could change in the future or be different on different bash versions, etc. I suspect this probability is very low in the particular case of local -p, but still it's not a great practice. Not something I want to give the stamp of approval of inside my code base.

    get_nix_version_parts(){
      local major minor patch
      IFS="." read -r major minor patch < <(nixv)
      printf '%s=%s\n' major "$major" minor "$minor" patch "$patch"
    }

Good catch on -r not mattering, here. I think `read` is one I've had trouble with and assumed that was it since I bothered disabling it. But after grepping around a bit more, the only one I see that shellcheck would object to that actually differs isn't common enough that I'd gripe about it.

I don't actually have a gripe with 2034, here. It's a good example of a statement that the user obviously has to triage.

Likewise, I'm just using `local -p` as a cheap way to show that the variables populate, it wasn't part of the original code I adapted. Yes--the case for coupling to the output of local -p is when the output is going to be used to set variables again later.

Here is shellcheck compliant solution which uses no external utilities, and is explicit about our intention:

    # function to imitate "nix --version" since I don't have it installed
    nixv() {
      echo 'nix (Nix) 2.3.4'
    }

    read -ra arr < <(nixv)

    echo "${arr[2]}"

Thanks for asking this, by the way.

Going back to intentionally look through a few things for examples is helping me better clarify why I've had this impression slowly building up...

1. Some Shellcheck code titles/short messages communicate uncertainty well, but some others can read as more confident/absolute than the situation merits.

2. Broadly, Shellcheck tends to steer people away from word-splitting. Word-splitting can be a surprising PITA, so I get it. But, it's also a critical concept for understanding shell.

If you are reluctantly writing Bash/shell, it's good to have Shellcheck help you avoid it. If you want or need to understand the language, you're going to have to grapple with word-splitting to get there.

That advice is applicable to any kind of code analysis tool.

Fair :) but I think there's a degree difference here (and this is more about the language than Shellcheck itself).

Also, maybe my original phrasing left room for misinterpretation? Shellcheck will happily suggest changes that break working code. I think I've had it happen ~4 times this year?

Obviously it varies a little by tool type and ecosystem--it's obviously not much of a surprise if a dead-code analysis tool suggests removing things you can't actually cut, and likewise linters in most languages can point out unused variables/parameters that you can't cut. But I can't recall the last time another tool gave me specific do-x-not-y suggestions that just weren't anywhere close to fungible.

> Shellcheck will happily suggest changes that break working code.

Which is OK once it is known. Your example nicely shows that. The flagged behavior is often unexpected, so there where it is expected having shellcheck line that turns off the warning greatly improves readability of the whole script, essentially showing the reader "here is the dependence on non obvious behavior."

Where such dependence exists, I prefer to see the "shellcheck" line before pointing to it (by turning that specific warning off exactly in that line). It's then a "vetted" and "explained" line.