Unlike  ed(1), which is great, moe(1) of GNU info(1)  infamy  is watery  and
uninteresting. info(1) is a bad man(1). 

Descending  a few lines of gopher.club,  jebug29 has bash scripts  for going
directly  to a gopher, whatever this means, screenshotting,  and unread mail
notifications.  I'm not going to install bash and I suspect bash scripts are
not going to be portable to ksh, but if they are I will take a look. 

jynx, has a bash gopher client (bash again?)

christyotwisty has a recipe named Keto-Coffee-Chipotle-BBQ-Sauce

screwtape   has  said that he's publishing  an i2p page this week on top  of
everything else 

cside has the bbc gopher mirrorer - oh, source isn't up for this

szcezuja has written some bash scripts

Alright, where is all this bash coming from, and why? My sdf netbsd has ksh,
and I also have ksh on openbsd.  I guess gentoo's default shell is bash.   A
shell  is  a  program  that primarily  fork(2)s  and  exec(3)s.    They  are
significant  in that when an operating  system  starts,  other  arrangements
notwithstanding a user is dropped into a shell whence they can fork and exec
programs   for whatever  they were hoping  to actually  do on the  computer.
Shells   have  over the years collected  detritus  for doing  tasks  without
actually  forking  and execing another program,  notably  csh, tcsh, ksh and
Borne again shell and a bevy of trendy ones and not to mention rc. 

I don't think that non-portable advanced shell usage is ever warranted.  For
starters,  we have system(3)  or something  like popen(3)  such that you can
write  a normal/trivial  C program  and use system  to pass commands  to the
shell  which  has forked and execed the C program.   So it's not like we are
missing  a capacity  to program  and should  hence add programming  language
features to a shell. 

Common lisps generally implement a #'run-program extension like

(ext:run-program "nc" '("-l" "localhost" "4242"))

which generally return (values return-code two-way-stream external-process).
This is a bit more sophisticated.   This has been stable for a long time;  I
probably needn't remind you of python's reworkings through the 3.Xs. 

While  I am grousing,  I also don't think there is a place for more powerful
shell scripting languages such as perl or python.  There simply is no reason
to ever go there (openbsd obviously uses perl for its utilities,  and Gentoo
is  basically  synonymous  with using python).   I am tempted  to say awk is
probably  an exception to my criticisms  because it might not be trivial  to
write the conventional  program that does what awk does, but I don't use awk
and am skeptical of what I am typing here. 

Vi  and emacs both can spawn/make  use of additional  shells  whether   vi's
:sh/:shell..exit  (I guess ex's) that puts you in a new shell outside vi, or
vi's !!pwd which would drop the results of pwd at the cursor, which imitates
ed's !pwd which will pass through and print whatever  shell command  (pwd in
this case). 

Emacs   shell  buffers  with M-x shell,  which  can be named  C-u M-x  shell
*my-35th-emacs-shell*  <ret>.   Emacs also has M-x term which puts you in  a
more terminal-like  (less dumb, but further from emacs) shell. There is also
M-x eshell  which splices your default  shell with also interpreting  elisp,
which  I  guess  makes  sense  for  the  sufficiently    emacs-enthusiastic.
Notwithstanding org-mode ob-shell. 

I am afraid  I became a bit waspish.  I was sad because I expect I won't  be
able to do anything with those bash projects.