i'm pretty new to the shell scripting world and not sure, if i should give my scripts a .sh or .bash extension.
not sure what the pros and cons are.
do you use file extensions for your scripts?
3 years ago by fuzzy_feeling to c/shell
i'm pretty new to the shell scripting world and not sure, if i should give my scripts a .sh or .bash extension.
not sure what the pros and cons are.
If we're talking specifically about executable scripts, here is #bash's (libera.chat) factoid on the matter:
Don't use extensions for your scripts. Scripts define new commands that you can run, and commands are generally not given extensions. Do you run ls.elf? Also: bash scripts are not sh scripts (so don't use .sh) and the extension will only cause dependencies headaches if the script gets rewritten in another language. See http://www.talisman.org/...
It's for these reasons that I keep my executable scripts named without extensions (e.g. install).
I sometimes have non-executable scripts: they're chmod -x, they don't have a shebang, and they're explicitly made for source-ing (e.g. library functions). For these, I give them an extension depending on what shell I wrote them for (and thus, what shell you need to use to source them), e.g. library.bash or library.zsh.
Usually I have most of my (admittedly very few) scripts be .sh with #!/bin/bash. I do have a few that don't have an extension however, and those are in my $PATH intended to be used as shell commands
This is how I do it as well. Shell scripts that I include in a project are named with a .sh extension so other users can identify them easily. Scripts that I want to run as commands often are in my $HOME/bin/ and donโt have an extension. Sometimes those are convenience symlinks with easier names, so ~/bin/example might be a link to ~/repos/example-project/example-script-with-long-name.sh.
I usually add the .sh to the scripts in my ~/bin folder. Just so when I go to edit them I know if they are a script or a binary or whatever.
in most cases no extension
no extension for commands that are like tools - placed in /usr/local/bin/ or user's folder ~/.local/bin/
but I add extension for scripts that matters where they are placed, for example ./build.sh and /mnt/my-disk/snapshot.sh
and source scripts in repo folder, such as github repo tools/src/tool-name.sh
I symlink it from bin with no extension, example:
ln -sr ~/dev/gh/my-script-repo-name/my-script.sh ~/.local/bin/my-script
original source has extension, but not in bin folder
Just put the shebang at the top of your script:
#! /usr/bin/env bash
I'm not a big fan of extensions because if you put the script in your $PATH it's weird to type do_the_thing.bash
On my personal computer, ~/bin has two directories within it.
One is for my .sh files and the other contains system links to them. The system link drops off the .sh and all scripts are added to my PATH
@programming.dev
Keep posts about shell scripting! Here are some guidelines to help:
In general, if your submission text is primarily shell code, then it is welcome here!
go to feed...
@programming.dev
Keep posts about shell scripting! Here are some guidelines to help:
In general, if your submission text is primarily shell code, then it is welcome here!
go to feed...
Just put the shebang at the top of your script:
#! /usr/bin/env bashI'm not a big fan of extensions because if you put the script in your
$PATHit's weird to typedo_the_thing.bashsave