In short, Amber is a programming language with Rust like syntax that compiles down to bash. More details here: https://amber-lang.com/

On the surface, it seems nice. Cleaner syntax, types, compile-time safety checks, etc. So you get to write in something nicer than bash but get the portability of bash.

My wonder is if there are pitfalls that make it worse than instead writing it in something like Python or even bash itself. I'd guess the generated bash code probably isn't the prettiest to look at or debug.

all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 25 points 3 months ago (1 child)

At the risk of stating the obvious, I would like everyone to know that https://www.shellcheck.net/ exists. Unless you are a bash wizard: if your bash script doesn't pass shellcheck, it is very likely to have bugs.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Let's also remind that at least Helix the very good editor automatically runs bash stuff through Shellcheck if you have it installed, while you type. It's been amazingly useful and educational. I write a lot of bash at work and have learned many finer details from Shellcheck's hints.

    It even does the Clippy thing. I'm piping something into a sed s/.../... and it tips 'try ${variable//search/replace} instead'.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    I wonder why they decided to make it transpile to bash instead of posix sh.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    They mention in the FAQ that they currently require some features of Bash but are thinking about including POSIX sh as a possible target. My guess without investigating is that they are using a thing like arrays that make implementation way easier but is not technically POSOX sh.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago

    I like the idea as BASH is available everywhere but has terrible gotchas in its syntax plus at times is unreadable.

    When I did some moderately complicated amber scripts I hit bugs. Also still some important features are missing.

    So I'm keeping an eye on it but it's definately not ready for anything serious yet.

    I am also watching https://oils.pub/ and hoping one or both of these projects succeed.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    If your comfortable writing rust, why not just use rust and compile to rust binaries? Rust has toolchains for realistically everything...

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    It's not Rust, OP was mistaken. It's ECMA-Script-like with Rust-like features and also Python-like features.

    I think the idea is, you can develop Amber scripts "at home" then deploy them on any machine that has Bash without needing to install anything. This benefits system admins.

    Amber compiles directly to shell code, so you can:

    • Leverage existing shell tooling and pipelines.
    • Deploy a single script without installing a language interpreter.
    • Benefit from shell‑native features (process substitution, job control) while enjoying high‑level syntax and safety.

    Is Amber production‑ready?

    In the the project it is production ready because it is already used in this context because the shell code generated is tested and confirmed that works, the language is evolving with the tooling set.

    Well, their FAQ isn't exactly production ready.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Unless OP edited their post, they said "Rust like", not that it is Rust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Yeah, it's a blurry line whether to call it rust-like if it borrows features, when actually most syntax is more like ECMA Script or Python. So I shouldn't really have said "OP was wrong". But they also kind of are. I dunno.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Eh, go is really good for this kind of stuff. It compiles to a single binary you can just execute from shell

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Doesn't that describe most languages?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'd say no. Even C needs external libraries.

    I guess Rust does this too though - in which case transpiling rust to bash is even less appealing :shrug:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Even C needs external libraries

    You can compile a C program while statically linking the libraries, thereby producing a single binary with no runtime dependencies. Just because Go can do this, too, doesn't mean it's special. It's just that most libraries for Go ship as source code and not as compiled libraries. But as soon as you import some actual library like Sqlite, OpenSSL, GTK or whatever, using some wrapper code, you're going to have the same dependency issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago

    I think you may as well write your script in rust, if that's what you want to do, and just have it call shell commands then parse the output in rust.

    I've done this in Python before, works fine.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    If you just want portability, then this could be useful. However, in my opinion a large part of why I use a shell script is to avoid compilation and just hack something together. If your goal is shell scripts that are easier to write you could also check out other shells:

    • fish is the easiest to use in my opinion, but is not POSIX compliant so you do have to learn the syntax.
    • zsh is a nice quality-of-life upgrade over BASH, tweaking the little things
    • There are also things like xonsh which use Python syntax for shell scripting, but I dont have personal experience with them.
  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Interesting. I dislike writing bash scripts so this might appeal to me, but probably not before a stable 1.x release.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago
    [–] 4 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Bash syntax sucks but imo rust syntax is 50 times worse. Interesting idea though.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    What do you dislike about Rust's syntax?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I just didn't like it. I did a tutorial years ago and it all felt unnatural and hard to read/write.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Fair enough, I guess. I too find the syntax of some languages to be a bit unergonomic. Though, I could probably get used to them, given enough time.

    I was just a bit curious, as Rust's syntax is not nearly as exotic compared to its signature features.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    You'll never take perl from me!

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I have used it, and honestly it's better than writing pure bash. But it's not perfect. Still needs a lot of work, and there are a bunch of weird limitations and things you need to remember. So I would say it's main use case is where you absolutely need bash portability over a more robust scripting/programming language.

  • source