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.
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 forsource
-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 tosource
them), e.g.library.bash
orlibrary.zsh
.Just put the shebang at the top of your script:
I'm not a big fan of extensions because if you put the script in your
$PATH
it's weird to typedo_the_thing.bash