Pros of ShellCheck

• More comprehensive static analysis and error detection for shell scripts
• Extensive rule set covering a wide range of shell scripting issues and best practices
• Integration with many popular editors and CI/CD pipelines

Cons of ShellCheck

• Focused solely on shell script analysis, lacking formatting capabilities
• May produce false positives in some cases, requiring manual review

Code Comparison

ShellCheck example:

# ShellCheck can detect issues like this:
echo $foo
# SC2086: Double quote to prevent globbing and word splitting.

sh example:

# sh focuses on formatting and can rewrite scripts:
echo $foo
# Formatted by sh:
echo "$foo"

Key Differences

• ShellCheck is primarily a linter and static analysis tool, while sh is a shell parser, formatter, and interpreter
• sh offers formatting capabilities, which ShellCheck does not provide
• ShellCheck has a more extensive rule set for detecting shell scripting issues

Use Cases

• Use ShellCheck for comprehensive shell script analysis and error detection
• Use sh for parsing, formatting, and interpreting shell scripts, especially when working with multiple shell dialects

Pros of bats-core

• Specifically designed for shell script testing, providing a robust framework for unit tests
• Supports test isolation and setup/teardown functions for more organized test suites
• Offers human-readable output and TAP-compliant results for easy integration with CI/CD pipelines

Cons of bats-core

• Limited to Bash scripting, not suitable for other shell languages
• Requires additional setup and learning curve compared to simpler shell script linting
• May introduce overhead for smaller projects or quick scripts

Code Comparison

bats-core example:

@test "addition using bc" {
  result="$(echo 2+2 | bc)"
  [ "$result" -eq 4 ]
}

mvdan/sh example:

#!/bin/sh
echo 2+2 | bc

Key Differences

• bats-core focuses on testing shell scripts, while mvdan/sh is primarily a shell parser, formatter, and interpreter
• mvdan/sh supports multiple shell dialects (sh, bash, mksh, bats), whereas bats-core is specific to Bash
• bats-core provides a structured testing framework, while mvdan/sh offers static analysis and formatting capabilities

Pros of shellharden

• Focuses specifically on hardening shell scripts for improved safety and reliability
• Provides automatic fixes for common shell scripting pitfalls
• Includes a detailed explanation of shell scripting best practices in its documentation

Cons of shellharden

• More limited in scope compared to sh's broader feature set
• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• Primarily targets bash, while sh supports multiple shell dialects

Code comparison

shellharden example:

shellharden --replace script.sh

sh example:

shfmt -w script.sh

Summary

shellharden is a specialized tool for improving shell script safety, offering automatic fixes and educational resources. sh, on the other hand, provides a more comprehensive set of features for shell script formatting, parsing, and interpretation across multiple shell dialects. While shellharden excels in its focused approach to script hardening, sh offers broader functionality and more active development. The choice between the two depends on whether you prioritize specific safety improvements or a more versatile shell scripting toolkit.

Pros of zx

• Designed for writing shell scripts in JavaScript, offering a more familiar syntax for web developers
• Provides built-in functions for common shell operations, simplifying script writing
• Integrates well with Node.js ecosystem and npm packages

Cons of zx

• Requires Node.js runtime, which may not be available in all environments
• Larger overhead compared to pure shell scripts
• Limited portability across different operating systems

Code Comparison

zx:

#!/usr/bin/env zx

await $`echo "Hello, World!"`
let files = await glob('*.js')
await Promise.all(files.map(f => $`prettier ${f} --write`))

sh:

#!/bin/sh

echo "Hello, World!"
for file in *.js; do
    prettier "$file" --write
done

Key Differences

• zx uses JavaScript syntax and async/await for shell operations
• sh follows traditional shell scripting syntax
• zx provides built-in functions like glob, while sh relies on shell commands
• zx scripts are typically longer due to JavaScript verbosity, but may be more readable for JavaScript developers
• sh scripts are more portable and have lower overhead, but may be less intuitive for those unfamiliar with shell scripting

Pros of pure-sh-bible

• Comprehensive collection of shell scripting techniques and best practices
• Focuses on POSIX-compliant, portable shell scripting
• Serves as an educational resource for learning shell scripting

Cons of pure-sh-bible

• Not a tool or library, but rather a documentation repository
• Lacks automated testing and validation of code snippets
• May require more effort to implement solutions compared to using a library

Code Comparison

pure-sh-bible example (string manipulation):

trim_string() {
    : "${1#"${1%%[![:space:]]*}"}"
    : "${_%"${_##*[![:space:]]}"}"
    printf '%s\n' "$_"
}

sh example (string manipulation):

func TrimString(s string) string {
    return strings.TrimSpace(s)
}

Key Differences

• pure-sh-bible is a documentation project, while sh is a Go library for shell parsing and formatting
• pure-sh-bible focuses on pure shell implementations, while sh provides programmatic tools for working with shell scripts
• sh offers automated testing and continuous integration, which pure-sh-bible lacks
• pure-sh-bible is more suitable for learning and reference, while sh is better for programmatic shell script manipulation

Pros of shellspec

• Specifically designed for shell script testing, offering a more tailored experience
• Provides a BDD-style syntax for writing tests, which can be more intuitive for some developers
• Includes built-in mocking capabilities for commands and functions

Cons of shellspec

• Limited to shell script testing, whereas sh offers broader shell scripting utilities
• May have a steeper learning curve for those unfamiliar with BDD testing frameworks
• Smaller community and fewer contributors compared to sh

Code comparison

shellspec example:

Describe 'My script'
  It 'should perform a specific action'
    When call ./my_script.sh
    The output should include 'Expected output'
    The status should be success
  End
End

sh example:

gofmt() {
    mv_shell gofmt "$@" || return
    # Simplify multi-line string comparisons
    shfmt "$@" | diff -u "$@" -
}

Summary

shellspec is a specialized testing framework for shell scripts with a BDD approach, while sh is a more general-purpose shell formatting and parsing tool. shellspec offers a structured testing environment but is limited to testing, whereas sh provides broader functionality for shell script development and maintenance.