this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
1063 points (99.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

24790 readers
713 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 90 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (11 children)

Regex

Edit: to everyone who responded, I use regex infrequently enough that the knowledge never really crystalizes. By the time I need it for this one thing again, I haven't touched it in like a year.

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 31 points 4 months ago

You get used to it, I don't even see the code—I just see: group... pattern... read-ahead...

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Most of regex is pretty basic and easy to learn, it's the look ahead and look behind that are the killers imo

[–] PoolloverNathan@programming.dev 6 points 4 months ago

(?=) for positive lookahead and (?!) for negative lookahead. Stick a < in the middle for lookbehind.

[–] Naich@lemmings.world 6 points 4 months ago
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 49 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Clearly you don't write enough bash scripts.

[–] CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Or scripts for basically any other variant of the Bourne shell. They are, for the most part, very cross compatible.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 6 points 4 months ago

That's the only reason I've ever done much of anything in shell script. As a network administrator I've worked many network appliances running on some flavor of Unix and the one language I can count on to be always available is bash. It has been well worth knowing for just that reason.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] perishthethought@lemm.ee 42 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I don't normally say this, but the AI tools I've used to help me write bash were pretty much spot on.

[–] marduk@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes, with respect to the grey bearded uncles and aunties; as someone who never "learned" bash, in 2025 I'm letting a LLM do the bashing for me.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 35 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Until the magic incantations you don't bother to understand don't actually do what you think they're doing.

[–] embed_me@programming.dev 35 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like a problem for future me. That guy hates me lol

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MBM@lemmings.world 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if there's a chance of getting rm -rf /* or zip bombs. Those are definitely in the training data at least.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] arendjr@programming.dev 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

In fairness, this also happens to me when I write the bash script myself 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 17 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah, an LLM can quickly parrot some basic boilerplate that's showed up in its training data a hundred times.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 6 points 4 months ago

For building a quick template that I can tweak to my needs, it works really well. I just don’t find it to be an intuitive scripting language.

[–] KazuchijouNo@lemy.lol 22 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Today I tried to write bash (I think)

I grabbed a bunch of commands, slapped a bunch of "&&" to string them together and saved them to a .sh file.

It didn't work as expected and I did not, at all, look at any documentation during the process. (This is obviously on me, I'll try harder next time)

[–] DeRp_DaWg@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

I try to remember to use man when learning a new command/program. And I almost always half-ass it and press the search button immediately to find whatever flag i need.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] umbraroze@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago (3 children)

There's always the old piece of wisdom from the Unix jungle: "If you write a complex shellscript, sooner or later you'll wish you wrote it in a real programming language."

I wrote a huge PowerShell script over the past few years. I was like "Ooh, guess this is a resume item if anyone asks me if I know PowerShell." ...around the beginning of the year I rewrote the bloody thing in Python and I have zero regrets. It's no longer a Big Mush of Stuff That Does a Thing. It's got object orientation now. Design patterns. Things in independent units. Shit like that.

[–] Kissaki@programming.dev 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I consider python a scripting language too.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

They're all programming languages, they all have their places.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] 0x0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 4 months ago (2 children)

PSA: Run ShellCheck on your shell scripts. It turns up a shocking number of programming errors. https://www.shellcheck.net/

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 15 points 4 months ago

Wait im not the only one? I think i relearned bash more times than i can remember.

[–] coldsideofyourpillow@lemmy.cafe 13 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

That's why I use nushell. Very convenient for writing scripts that you can understand. Obviously, it cannot beat Python in terms of prototyping, but at least I don't have to relearn it everytime.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So the alternative is:

  • either an obtuse script that works everywhere, or
  • a legible script that only works on your machine…
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Akito@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Nu is great. Using it since many years. Clearly superior shell. Only problem is, that it constantly faces breaking changes and you therefore need to frequently update your modules.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] brokenlcd@feddit.it 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Knowing that there is still a bash script i wrote around 5 years ago still running the entirety of my high scool lab makes me sorry for the poor bastard that will need to fix those hieroglyphs as soon as some package breaks the script. I hate that i used bash, but it was the easiest option at the time on that desolate server.

[–] formulaBonk@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago

Bash scripts survive because often times they are the easiest option on an abandoned server

[–] Cold_Brew_Enema@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Me with powershell. I'll write a pretty complex script, not write powershell for 3 months, come back and have to completely relearn it.

[–] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago

Any no-SQL syntax for interacting with databases.

[–] RecallMadness@lemmy.nz 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

This. But Pandas and Numpy.

Pandas and Numpy and Bash.

[–] Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 4 months ago

.loc and .iloc queries are a fun syntax adventure every time

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gobbel2000@programming.dev 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So true. Every time I have to look up how to write a bash for loop. Where does the semicolon go? Where is the newline? Is it terminated with done? Or with end? The worst part with bash is that when you do it wrong, most of the time there is no error but something completely wrong happens.

[–] ClemaX@lemm.ee 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It all makes sense when you think about the way it will be parsed. I prefer to use newlines instead of semicolons to show the blocks more clearly.

for file in *.txt
do
    cat "$file"
done

The do and done serve as the loop block delimiters. Such as { and } in many other languages. The shell parser couldn't know where stuff starts/ends.

Edit: I agree that the then/fi, do/done case/esac are very inconsistent.

Also to fail early and raise errors on uninitialized variables, I recommend to add this to the beginning of your bash scripts:

set -euo pipefail

Or only this for regular sh scripts:

set -eu

-e: Exit on error

-u: Error on access to undefined variable

-o pipefail: Abort pipeline early if any part of it fails.

There is also -x that can be very useful for debugging as it shows a trace of every command and result as it is executed.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

every control structure should end in the backwards spelling of how they started

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Once you get used to it it is kind of fun.

Shame about do though.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 4 months ago

it could have been not since there's no try.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 7 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Maybe applies more to regex, the write only language.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] T156@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Bash substitution is regex-level wizardry.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Slapping a $ before an environment variable name is "wizardry?"

[–] pelya@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Nope, the whole ${variable/regex/replacement} syntax

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 4 months ago

Incredibly true for me these days. But don't fret, shellcheck and tldp.org is all you need. And maybe that one stackoverflow answer about how to get the running script's directory

[–] MechanicalJester@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I mastered and forgot almost entirely RegEx several times now

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 months ago

VLOOKUP. Every time. Also Catan Cities and Knights.

load more comments
view more: next ›