i’m pretty new to the shell scripting world and not sure, if i should give my scripts a .sh or .bash extension.
not sure what the pros and cons are.
i’m pretty new to the shell scripting world and not sure, if i should give my scripts a .sh or .bash extension.
not sure what the pros and cons are.
If we’re talking specifically about executable scripts, here is #bash’s (libera.chat) factoid on the matter:
It’s for these reasons that I keep my executable scripts named without extensions (e.g.
install
).I sometimes have non-executable scripts: they’re
chmod -x
, they don’t have a shebang, and they’re explicitly made forsource
-ing (e.g. library functions). For these, I give them an extension depending on what shell I wrote them for (and thus, what shell you need to use tosource
them), e.g.library.bash
orlibrary.zsh
.I do the same, but I include shebangs anyway out of habit.