Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 4
    Although your point is well taken- bash's syntax is arguably difficult and it's missing the more elegant data structures and features of Perl or Python, bash is as real as it gets- in its domain. It is a domain-specific language, and I would argue even better (more succinct, simpler) than eg Python in many instances. Can you administer a roomful of systems and not know Python? Yes. Can you do that and not know a lick of bash [programming]? I wouldn't want to try. After 30 years of shell programming I tell you it's as real as it gets. And yes, I speak Python. But don't confuse the youngsters. Commented May 10, 2016 at 13:21
  • 5
    That said, technically I like this answer more. To say that "&" is the answer to the user's question, "fork at one point so two copies of the same script are running" is to my mind confusing. What "&" does, according to the bash manual, is "...executes the [given] command in the background in a subshell." It must terminate a command, and it does involve a fork (technically, in Linux, a clone() ), but at that point two copies of the same script are not running. Commented May 10, 2016 at 13:39
  • The UNIX shell is (implements) a REAL programming language. Commented Sep 14, 2022 at 5:37
  • @Luis Yeah, my 10-year-old tongue-in-cheek comment maybe isn't the best. I'll rephrase. Commented Sep 15, 2022 at 20:21