I have no connection to coral or just-bash. Why don't you do it yourself and let us know, since you are familiar with it?

I've been working with the shell long enough that I know just by looking at it.

Anyway, it was rethorical. I was making a point about portability. Scripts we write today run even on ancient versions, and it has been an effort kept by lots of different interpreters (not only bash).

I'm trying to give sane advice here. Re-implementing bash is a herculean task, and some "small incompatibilities" sometimes reveal themselves as deep architectural dead-ends.

The project does not list portability as a concern. It's for agent use; they are not trying to re-use existing bash code.

Before, you said:

> they use it because there's a lot of training material.

Now, you say:

> they are not trying to re-use existing bash code.

Can't you see how this is a contradiction?

---

I'm sorry, I can't continue like this. I want to have meaningful conversations.

Is English your second language? "They" refers to very different things here.

The issue here is not language, is basic understanding of how LLMs are trained, how agents act on that training and what is the role of the shell from a systems perspective.

I can't have a meaningful conversation with someone that doesn't fully grasp those, no matter in which language.