shell-safe-rm VS bash

i ended up using shell-safe-rm plus trash-cli and my own wrapper script around rm that verifies some rules like for example the argument don't start with '/' , if i want to delete for example /home/shin/.local/somefile then the script will not let me and suggest to cd to /home/me/.local and delete from there , same if i do rm /var/somedir.

I use a script called `shell-safe-rm` [1], aliased as `rm` in interactive shells, such that I don't normally use `rm` directly. Instead of directly removing files, they are placed in the trash folder so they can be recovered if they were mistakenly deleted. Highly recommend using a script/program like this to help prevent accidental data loss.

[1] https://github.com/kaelzhang/shell-safe-rm

You could think about using trash-cli or safe-rm if you're too trigger happy with your terminal

So what's really is the difference/advantage compared to at least five other similar utilities already existing (trash-cli, shell-safe-rm, rm-trash, rmtrash, crap)? Can't really be that it uses D as the programming language. As a matter of fact why're there five utilities doing the same thing in the first place?

I meant I'm using safe-rm now but I was using another wrapper when I was younger for who knows why

> Next you'll be telling me that I shouldn't use Bash because Bash 5.0 came out in 2018 and only got two minor point releases over the next 5 years. But that sounds dumb, huh?

What's dumb is not being able to tell the difference. It's not about the numbers.

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/ shows there are constant updates. Things are being worked on. Your example proves my whole point. There are updates every year for many years.

Express? Not so. There are many gaps in its history. And for a tool like Express that has way more surface area it is in need of a lot more testing and updating e.g. if NodeJs changes something it breaks.

Does Bash need to make sure it works with HTTP3, Brotli or many other things that came out? No.

> Because for the most part - it doesn't need them.

Right, let's go back to the Stone Age. You don't need clothes either - just a leaf. You're just so dismissive on innovation then why bother? You don't even need NodeJs. Back to assembly and punch cards...

> Is an ignorant take.

Yes, yours. As shown above by your example.

> People promote it because it's a good tool.

And how do you know that? Where are the stats? Or people just google for NodeJs server, see the top response being Express and just do that. The cycle then repeats. Have people promoting it actually benchmarked, compared and investigated all the tools before making this informed decision? I'm sure you've heard from each and everyone 1 of them to know the answer eh.

If anyone else is wondering (but it's probably just me), "compatibility level 50" doesn't mean that Bash has a complicated feature-detection algorithm that places compatibility on a scale from 0 to 100%. "Level 50" just means compatibility with bash 5.0.

The bash shell also has code in it to check for this same magic number. This is because bash is also available on systems where the kernel doesn't do #! processing, but people would still want their scripts to behave in a predictable manner. You can see this in execute_cmd.c from the current bash source code.

Well, have you looked at the bash source? The error message is around line 4481 in this file: https://github.com/bminor/bash/blob/master/jobs.c

Was it some ancient bug? I cant seem to find a mention of it in bash changelog

Here is Bash's source code.

After I made the comment I actually decided to look up BASHs source code and here appears to be the part that handles errors if the filename is to be believed https://github.com/bminor/bash/blob/master/error.c

I present you a middle case: here's the source code for Gnu bash's cp command.