Should We Target POSIX sh Rather Than Bash?

[mcmah309]

Some Unix-based systems, such as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and macOS (in its modern versions), do not ship with Bash by default. If one of Amber's goals is portability across a wide range of Unix-based systems, targeting POSIX sh instead of Bash would be more ideal. POSIX sh is a standardized subset of shell functionality, ensuring that generated scripts work on any Unix-based machine, regardless of whether Bash is installed.

By targeting Bash, Amber requires a dependency that isn't universally available. This could limit Amber's applicability in environments where installing additional software like Bash isn't feasible or desirable. Targeting POSIX sh would guarantee broader compatibility, thus aligning with the goal of portability.

Is there any interest or plan to switch the target to POSIX sh in the future for greater portability?

[Mte90]

Yes our plan is to have a parameter to bash to define what bash version should support during the compilation process.

Some tickets about it:

• [Bug] Shorthand assignment operator += is not supported by Bash 2 #166
• test amber for all bash versions #422
• [Feature] Make declarations of function to be POSIX compliant #334

PS: we are already working on the posix support