agreed. and the setup for this tool in particular looks… complicated and annoying, at least at first glance

for myself, if i want a shell script to be _portable_ i just write it in POSIX sh and try to be smart about dependencies

and if i don't care about portability, i'd rather just use a nicer shell like bash or zsh or fish (i'd actually like to mess with ysh at some point)

i feel like i'm much more likely to encounter a system with one of those shells available than one with modernish installed, and the idea of introducing a bundling/build step into shell scripts is deeply unappealing to me.

i can see why this exists, i think, and i imagine there are people who find it useful. i simply am not among them.

i also find it disappointing that their most basic example shows the setup in bash instead of sh, but that might just be me.

I get wanting some level of portability, but what kind of systems do you still encounter (and want to run your scripts on) that have sh yet lack Bash? I would've expected that to be the baseline nowadays.