Hide

What's this?

commandlinefu.com is the place to record those command-line gems that you return to again and again.

Delete that bloated snippets file you've been using and share your personal repository with the world. That way others can gain from your CLI wisdom and you from theirs too. All commands can be commented on, discussed and voted up or down.

If you have a new feature suggestion or find a bug, please get in touch via http://commandlinefu.uservoice.com/

Get involved!

You can sign-in using OpenID credentials, or register a traditional username and password.

OpenID
or
Sign in Register

First-time OpenID users will be automatically assigned a username which can be changed after signing in.

Hide

Stay in the loop…

Follow the Tweets.

Every new command is wrapped in a tweet and posted to Twitter. Following the stream is a great way of staying abreast of the latest commands. For the more discerning, there are Twitter accounts for commands that get a minimum of 3 and 10 votes - that way only the great commands get tweeted.

» http://twitter.com/commandlinefu
» http://twitter.com/commandlinefu3
» http://twitter.com/commandlinefu10

Subscribe to the feeds.

Use your favourite RSS aggregator to stay in touch with the latest commands. There are feeds mirroring the 3 Twitter streams as well as for virtually every other subset (users, tags, functions,…):

Subscribe to the feed for:

Hide

News

2011-03-12 - Confoo 2011 presentation
Slides are available from the commandlinefu presentation at Confoo 2011: http://presentations.codeinthehole.com/confoo2011/
2011-01-04 - Moderation now required for new commands
To try and put and end to the spamming, new commands require moderation before they will appear on the site.
2010-12-27 - Apologies for not banning the trolls sooner
Have been away from the interwebs over Christmas. Will be more vigilant henceforth.
2010-09-24 - OAuth and pagination problems fixed
Apologies for the delay in getting Twitter's OAuth supported. Annoying pagination gremlin also fixed.
Hide

Tags

Hide

Functions

Hide

Credits

Site by David Winterbottom (user root).

Backticks are evil

Terminal - Backticks are evil
echo "The date is: $(date +%D)"
2009-03-07 15:51:59
User: atoponce
Functions: echo
74
Up
Down
Backticks are evil

This is a simple example of using proper command nesting using $() over ``. There are a number of advantages of $() over backticks. First, they can be easily nested without escapes:

program1 $(program2 $(program3 $(program4)))

versus

program1 `program2 \`program3 \`program4\`\``

Second, they're easier to read, then trying to decipher the difference between the backtick and the singlequote: `'. The only drawback $() suffers from is lack of total portability. If your script must be portable to the archaic Bourne shell, or old versions of the C-shell or Korn shell, then backticks are appropriate, otherwise, we should all get into the habit of $(). Your future script maintainers will thank you for producing cleaner code.

Add to favourites | Report as malicious

Alternatives

There is 1 alternative - vote for the best!

Terminal - Alternatives

Know a better way?

If you can do better, submit your command here.

What others think

I totally agree.

Comment by CodSpirit 219 weeks and 4 days ago

That's why rc shell uses `{}, $ is too confusing too

Comment by maht 219 weeks and 4 days ago

seconded

Comment by linuxrawkstar 219 weeks and 4 days ago

@maht, i agree:

echo "The date is: {date +%D}"

would be easier. i wish i could do this in bash.

Comment by nickleus 184 weeks and 1 day ago

Bad example; it doesn't need command substitution:

date +"The date is %c"

(Not to mention that %D is the worst possible date format.)

Comment by cfajohnson 182 weeks and 5 days ago

@cfajohnson cute, but the purpose of the command is to show how to appropriately nest commands, not how to use the date command.

Comment by atoponce 152 weeks and 5 days ago

Yeah, evil but totally necessary.

For example, this won't work with $() but works just fine with back ticks:

x=1; case $x in 1) echo one ;; esac

Why? Because the 1) in the case confuses the $() parser.

Comment by zapatar 15 weeks and 3 days ago

Your point of view

You must be signed in to comment.

Related sites and podcasts