Talk:Bash (Unix shell)

Misleading timeline points

Some anachronisms:

• 1971 - Ken Thompson developed the first shell for UNIX called the 'V6 shell' - except that “v6 shell” was simply shorthand for whatever version of the shell was shipped as part of UNIX v6, which itself wasn't shipped until 5 years later. This misattribution extends to claims of features that did not exist in 1971, such as pipelines.
  The reference to osh still being distributed is clearly out of place; it should probably sit against the 1977 release of the Bourne Shell.
• 1977 - ASCII published by NIST - technically true, but it had been published by ANSI in 1968. (By 1977 ASCII had already been the dominant encoding for several years, so it's not clear why it's mentioned here at all.)
• 1984 - IEEE POSIX work started in 1984 - except it wasn't driven by IEEE until 1986, and wasn't called POSIX until 1988.

Also, much of this list really belongs under UNIX rather than Bash. Martin Kealey (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest we move statements on ASCII to the article about ASCII.
Regarding POSIX: I think we should keep this statement cause it specifies "work" on standard, not standard itself which was published in 1988. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 09:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

yes, there's nearly no history of bash itself in most of these entries. Removing them. MüllerMarcus (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Memory is fungible. Any anachronisms should be addressed with references to sources. Blush30720 (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Random grab-bag

I find the overall quality of this article disappointing. It feels like a random grab-bag of stuff without a structural focus on how Bash (a) implements a POSIX shell, and (b) offers extensions.

The ordering of the details makes little sense, mixing POSIX features and extensions together.

Some writing indicate poor understanding of the shell itself, mixing terminology, conflating "terminal" and "shell" as if they were the same thing. Some citations don't actually say what the text does. (For example, it says that "trap" was a new feature in version 2; it wasn't, it was there in version 1.)

The "grab bag" feel of this whole article makes me think that it should be substantially cut down, referencing other (more reliable) sources for actual timelines and feature descriptions. All explanations of POSIX features should be cut out and moved to an article about the POSIX shell. Martin Kealey (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

It's a story, Martin. Blush30720 (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

"All explanations of POSIX features should be cut out and moved to an article about the POSIX shell."

I disagree for these reasons: 1) POSIX mode is a core component of the Bash program, the article is about the Bash program, therefore the article should include information on POSIX mode; 2) People use Bash to execute #!/bin/sh scripts all the time, there is no official reference implementation of the POSIX specification, and all Unix-like shells which implement some or all of the POSIX specification do so in slightly or very different ways, therefore, any discussion of how Bash implements the POSIX specification should be included within the article about the Bash program. Blush30720 (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, and this article is generally difficult to read for a non-technical expert, as its structure more resembles an instruction manual than a encyclopedia entry. At a minimum, such content deserves its own page, perhaps Bash internals? OceanLoop (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

OceanLoop,

"Misleading edit summaries," is really quite incorrect, I am sure, and, based upon a solely partial reading. I've reverted some of your edits because they were disruptive. I'm trying to clarify the prose and the ideas. Writing can be messy. It's a work in progress. I suggest you delete either your own contributions or post to this talk page before deleting things. Given that, I also have this concern that you've voiced, that the page may be too much of a how-to manual, so I've put the How-to banner at the top of the article, to reflect this concern. Please take care. Blush30720 (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Do not revert any more edits until you address the feedback provided by multiple users on this Talk page. Please start by reading WP:NOTHOWTO. If you need additional community consensus, ask for help in the Teahouse. Thank you. 🌊 oceanloop 00:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll revert an edit when it's harmful, OceanLoop. You can stop or I can look into getting you banned. Blush30720 (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit warring is not productive and against the Wikipedia rules. Please seek community consensus for your changes using this Talk page. 🌊 oceanloop 00:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Honestly Blush30720 (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering to teach me about Wikipedia Blush30720 (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The only person edit warring is you, OceanLoop Blush30720 (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Variables

"Scripting variables are signified by all lower case letters or CamelCase." -- says who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.15.72 (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It's a story

The process of learning how to use Bash includes understanding what things like ASCII and POSIX are. The process of unearthing The Story of Bash involves understanding where things like ASCII and POSIX come from and why. Is there exess dross in the process? Yes; that is inevitable. Is it bereft of purpose? By no means. Are the excess lists easily clicked-passed using the Table of Contents or the PageDown button? Yes. Are seemingly well-known aphorisms debunked as myths in the process? Yes: "rc" does not stand for 'resource configuration,' and is in fact rooted in the term "RUNCOM." Is something like that useful? In my opinion, very much so. Discussion? Blush30720 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Blush30720 While I appreciate your spirited contributions, the article has become somewhat of a textbook-style guide to using Bash and not an article about Bash and its respective history, accomplishments, and other significance, as Wikipedia guidelines require. Much of the content you are adding is liable to be removed under WP:NOTHOW so I recommend discussing your strategy here first. OceanLoop (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Programming structures 2

Why "Programming structures 2"? What is the distinction between "Programming structures 1" and "Programming structures 2"? Same for Info 1 vs Info 2. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:52, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The TOC structure is based on the parser's order of operations. The explanations in each subsection build from the explantions in the previous subsections, so some newbie can read the full document top to bottom and have 98% of it reasonably make sense. Blush30720 (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Anchors

Is there a reason that almost every section heading has an anchor html tag? Wiki markup has its own way to link to sections, and the current formatting causes clutter and throws up CW Error #85 errors. Moose (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be little reason or intention behind most of the revisions to this article; I would remove anything wrong on sight. 🌊 oceanloop 14:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)