> so you end up shifting and re-enqueuing with set -- "$@" "$1", which is unreadable.
How is that unreadable? Set all the positional arguments as is, then set the first one again, into new positional arguments. I'm not sure why you want the first arg twice, but thats your call.
Either way, it's hardly unreadable.
> And of course this is usually the point where you ask yourself if you've chosen the correct language for the task, but that's another debate.
It isn't another debate though. It's all the same debate: do you know the language you're reading and/or writing? Do you know what it can do, what it can be pushed to do, and what it really shouldn't do?
Those are all related to the same basic point: if you think Shell is unreadable, I'd suggest it's because you don't know shell.
Remember readable means that you can read and understand it. Not that it's written out in words that someone with on page 1 of "how to program for dummies" can understand.
> Remember readable means that you can read and understand it
Yes you are right, my usage of "readable" was probably wrong there.
Maybe the point I was trying to make was less about the individual constructs but more about how the lack of "common" features makes the whole program less "understandable", or maybe less easy to get familiar with, simply due to the amount of code needed to achieve a specific task.
The same way assembly is considered less "readable" than C. Not because assembly is less readable on a line by line basis, it's even simpler, but because of the number of lines and operations needed to achieve a simple task.
Basically it's easier to understand 10 lines than a 1000.
How is that unreadable? Set all the positional arguments as is, then set the first one again, into new positional arguments. I'm not sure why you want the first arg twice, but thats your call.
Either way, it's hardly unreadable.
> And of course this is usually the point where you ask yourself if you've chosen the correct language for the task, but that's another debate.
It isn't another debate though. It's all the same debate: do you know the language you're reading and/or writing? Do you know what it can do, what it can be pushed to do, and what it really shouldn't do?
Those are all related to the same basic point: if you think Shell is unreadable, I'd suggest it's because you don't know shell.
Remember readable means that you can read and understand it. Not that it's written out in words that someone with on page 1 of "how to program for dummies" can understand.