I think this article is supposed to commend Python as a better choice than Bash? I think the author forgot to make a convincing argument for that, though.

> The point of bash-bashing is to reduce use of the shell.

That's a tautology. I get it, we're supposed to reduce the use of bash ... but why?

> Without much real work, it’s easy to replace shell scripts with Python code.

But you're writing the same thing again? There needs to be more reason than this.

> The revised code is easier to read and maintain, runs a little faster, and can have a proper unit test suite.

Three claims. Any data to support it?

Some of the examples of "bash is bad" are also not convincing to me. Here's an example:

> An example of a shell obscurity is the way the current working directory is set. The cd command is clear enough, but in the presence of sub-shells using (), can make it difficult to discern a stack of nested shell invocations and how the working directory changes when the sub-shells exit.

So...why do you have "a stack of nested shell invocations" that all need to be working directory aware? And how would this be any better in Python? (It could be better in either Python or Bash but either one still requires the developer to avoid simple mistakes.)

I don't know. I don't get it. I feel like the author had the unfortunate experience of knowing more Python than Bash and inheriting someone else's (who also didn't have much Bash experience) crappy Bash code.