Skip Navigation
Shell Scripting @programming.dev fuzzy_feeling @programming.dev

do you use file extensions for your scripts?

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.

12

You're viewing a single thread.

12 comments

  • If we're talking specifically about executable scripts, here is #bash's (libera.chat) factoid on the matter:

    Don't use extensions for your scripts. Scripts define new commands that you can run, and commands are generally not given extensions. Do you run ls.elf? Also: bash scripts are not sh scripts (so don't use .sh) and the extension will only cause dependencies headaches if the script gets rewritten in another language. See http://www.talisman.org/~erlkonig/documents/commandname-extensions-considered-harmful

    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 for source-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 to source them), e.g. library.bash or library.zsh.

12 comments