Agreed. This is one of my biggest regrets for not following POSIX syntax more closely. So much so that I did at one point start writing in support for inlining Bash (and others) code into murex as a way of allowing users to make use of the rich content already out there. But I couldn't decide on a clean way of implementing it that wasn't any better than `bash -c 'some code'` so ended up removing the feature.
As it is, I'm still half tempted to incorporate a bit more POSIX support to make code sharing easier. But there's a real risk that I could compromise the design goals of my own language in doing so.
I think this is projects like Oil Shell (https://www.oilshell.org/) have the upper hand. It's gone for Bash compatibility plus new features. I have a lot of respect for what they do as it's a much harder undertaking than what I've done.
Agreed. This is one of my biggest regrets for not following POSIX syntax more closely. So much so that I did at one point start writing in support for inlining Bash (and others) code into murex as a way of allowing users to make use of the rich content already out there. But I couldn't decide on a clean way of implementing it that wasn't any better than `bash -c 'some code'` so ended up removing the feature.
As it is, I'm still half tempted to incorporate a bit more POSIX support to make code sharing easier. But there's a real risk that I could compromise the design goals of my own language in doing so.
I think this is projects like Oil Shell (https://www.oilshell.org/) have the upper hand. It's gone for Bash compatibility plus new features. I have a lot of respect for what they do as it's a much harder undertaking than what I've done.