"If I type a shell command that's valuable - one that did something useful enough that I might want it again in future, and long and complicated enough that I'd be annoyed to have to figure it out a second time from scratch - then I can't rely on it just happening to be in my .bash_history. So instead I put it somewhere else: maybe a shell function in my .bashrc, or maybe a shell script in my directory of random useful scriptlets."
I have a folder marked executable with hundreds of small shell scripts, appended to $PATH. I never write long scripts. I sometimes write scripts that run other scripts but I try to avoid such dependencies. I do not use bash, I use NetBSD Almquist or modified Debian Almquist shell so all the scripts are highly portable. I can move a tarball of this folder from computer to computer, whether the OS is Linux or BSD. These scripts generally run faster than bash scripts.
It would be untenable to save all command line history since I spend every day in the shell in textmode (not x11) and only occasionally switch to a graphical environment. I sometimes use Almquist-based shells that have command line history removed. This forces me to write useful scripts.
A lot of cumulative shell knowledge is contained in that folder of scripts. These scripts have worked for decades unchanged. I think the Almquist shell may be my favourite interpreter. No matter what else I try I always come back to the shell language. There is something appealing about scripts that seem to work forever.
>It would be untenable to save all command line history since I spend every day in the shell in textmode (not x11) and only occasionally switch to a graphical environment
I don't understand this remark. What has x11 got to do with shell history? My bash appends all commands to .bash_history, immediately, regardless of whether it's run inside a terminal emulator or a VT.
Context switching between textmode and a graphics layer, like x11, is IME time-consuming and relatively janky. Whereas switching from a "terminal window" to some graphical program in a graphical environment like x11 is very quick and relatively smooth. Because I prefer textmode, I stay in textmode and I am not switching to a graphical environment very often, if at all. I am not using graphical programs. Consequently I accumulate an inordinate amount of command line history. Too much to save, IMHO.
As I mentioned, I do not use bash, I use a smaller, faster shell. I have no ".bash_history". And sometimes I use even smaller shells that have no command line history, in order to reduce program size.
I think they were implying that they generate a lot at the CLI, because they gots no GUI. Their whole day of computing would be pushing into a history file whereas most folk gotta lotta clickin’ happening too.
Might be wrong though.
I have a folder marked executable with hundreds of small shell scripts, appended to $PATH. I never write long scripts. I sometimes write scripts that run other scripts but I try to avoid such dependencies. I do not use bash, I use NetBSD Almquist or modified Debian Almquist shell so all the scripts are highly portable. I can move a tarball of this folder from computer to computer, whether the OS is Linux or BSD. These scripts generally run faster than bash scripts.
It would be untenable to save all command line history since I spend every day in the shell in textmode (not x11) and only occasionally switch to a graphical environment. I sometimes use Almquist-based shells that have command line history removed. This forces me to write useful scripts.
A lot of cumulative shell knowledge is contained in that folder of scripts. These scripts have worked for decades unchanged. I think the Almquist shell may be my favourite interpreter. No matter what else I try I always come back to the shell language. There is something appealing about scripts that seem to work forever.