bash-core VS pass-import

Error handling is also atrocious. Doing set -e fixes some issues, but there are plenty of valid cases in which one of your commands will have an error, and your script will continue execution like nothing ever happened. And, in the case of an error, as I'm sure you have realized, diagnostics are absolutely terrible. You're extremely lucky to get a line number (which I think was only added since Bash 5.1), but that's it. If you want anything more, like a stacktrace, you're stuck in the water. I have developed a library, bash-core, to help with this, but the stacktrace handling acts unexpectedly if there are errors within subshells.

I'm quite happy to see that something Bash-related is on Hacker News! Unfortunately it seems that I don't really agree with much the author...

While I do agree that it would be nice to be able to have 'local' functions and have inter-function cleanup work better, the logical conclusion for me was not to use function subshells. Since the use case is for larger programs (where different functions may want to have their own cleanup mechanisms), I'm opting to go for more of a library route. For example, I'm working on a Bash library that includes a function to allow different sources to add (and remove) functions to the same `TRAP`. A similar function may be useful, possibly involving the `RETURN` trap and the `-T` flag. Obviously, using a package manager for _Bash_ of all languages brings in a lot of overhead, but I think it can be quite powerful, especially with a potential "Bundle" feature that makes scripts work without the package manager.

Concerning specifically the use of subshells, (as other commenters have pointed out) it significantly reduces performance. I also disagree that dynamic scoping is necessarily bad for Bash. I find it quite useful when I need to use various common functions to manipulate a variable - since modifying and 'returning' variables from a function is usually either slow or verbose with Bash. Admittedly though, this feature is quite annoying at times - for example, most public functions in my Bash package manager[2] all have their variables prefixed with two underscores - because they `source` all the shell scripts of all package dependencies - so I want to be extra certain nothing weird happens

[1] https://github.com/hyperupcall/bash-core/blob/a17ab0a8b6070f...

> I always tell these people to just sign up for a password manager and they always resist and say no. I must be missing something obvious.

Maybe they don't want to be relying on a random third-party for all their passwords?

Rather than getting them to sign up for a password manager, what about getting them to install a password manager? I use https://www.passwordstore.org/ - it encrypts your passwords with GPG, and shares the storage via a Git repository for synchronisation between different machines.

That way you can delegate the password handling to another program, e.g. a password manager like pass(1) (https://www.passwordstore.org/) or some interactive graphical prompt.

I want to move to something compatible with https://www.passwordstore.org/ - an open standard for keeping your passwords in a folder encrypted with OpenPGP.

The problem is that I'm nervous to give an unknown Android app and browser plugin total control of my passwords and access to my github account when I don't have time to review it's code properly. I have a bit more trust ing the command line tools, but I'd like to be sure that more people are looking at the code before I trust my life to it.

> Create a system or pattern based on url or brand and mentally hash it into a password.

Doesn't sound very secure. Also when you realize that you anyway have to trust cryptography, I believe it starts making a lot of sense to have an actual cryptographic key and encrypt it with one good random password you learn by heart.

I use pass https://www.passwordstore.org/, which encrypts my passwords with my GPG key, which comes from my Yubikey, which I unlock with a password. That means that I only need to remember one password, and it feels a lot more secure than your pattern based on url or brand.

i use pass and keep my database on a local git repo. it encrypts your passwords with gpg and is a really simple command line program

If you want portability and simplicity, there's a project called simply pass that uses standard *nix utilities (and git, I believe) to manage passwords from CLI.

0. Pass is just text files encrypted with gpg. I needed just one password on one work computer, where I had my gpg key, but not all my passwords. Decrypted the file and that was it.

1. There are plugins and web clients: https://www.passwordstore.org/#extensions

I've been incredibly happy with https://www.passwordstore.org/ for years. The data store is a file hierarchy, with the files themselves encrypted with GPG. Sync is via git. TOTP support with a plugin.