My plan to have it with batteries included is to reduce the chance of it happening. Most of the times my bash scripts fail are due to:
1. bash heavily rely on OS tooling for almost everything, which is not bad per se, but adds more variation. Lua is a more complete programming language and the idea is that except for invoking external binaries to do things like copying files, talking to AWS, etc, you have everything you need in this lua runtime on steroids.
2. Instead of using the system-installed bash, you can copy Lush binaries instead of relying on the system installed one
Currently, the only dependencies of lush are libssl.so, libcrypto.so and libgcc_s.so. At some point, I plan also to get all static, so there will be no dependencies, no even libgcc
So shell scripts frequently fail due to variations and a lack of consistency in their runtime environment.
What will prevent this new interpreter from developing the same issue over time?
My plan to have it with batteries included is to reduce the chance of it happening. Most of the times my bash scripts fail are due to:
1. bash heavily rely on OS tooling for almost everything, which is not bad per se, but adds more variation. Lua is a more complete programming language and the idea is that except for invoking external binaries to do things like copying files, talking to AWS, etc, you have everything you need in this lua runtime on steroids. 2. Instead of using the system-installed bash, you can copy Lush binaries instead of relying on the system installed one
Currently, the only dependencies of lush are libssl.so, libcrypto.so and libgcc_s.so. At some point, I plan also to get all static, so there will be no dependencies, no even libgcc