https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2021-07/msg00059.html
> So, most people have simply written the whole thing off as a lost cause. > The best advice I can give is, "if you need localization in your program, > don't write it in bash".That is not an option for me, bash has too many advantages comparing to other languages :
* portability.* embedded by default on many OS (we are not forced to install heavy dependencies).
* powerful syntax that allows to write much less code than in any other language (the downside of this is that code often appears unreadable, mainly for beginners).
* Quick to write, debug and deploy. * ... (etc .)When speed of execution is not a bottleneck, bash is then (at least for me) the perfect language to write pieces of Proof-Of-Concept as well as some "In-production" tools. And I would prefer to not waste time, portability or long term compatibility or maintenance cost (cf. dependencies), using some other languages.
I like what you wrote 12 years ago ( https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2009-02/msg00258.html ). IMHO, it could have change some people's mind about bash, and could have saved developer energy.
> $'...' already exists, so you can't use that for localization.I would like to use it still for "C-style-string" feature, and to be able to translate it. In other word not changing its current usage, but extending it.
OpenPGP_0xA3983A40D1458443.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
