If you really want your scripts to be portable, you should probably write them in POSIX sh. There might be a high probability that any given machine with a Unix-like operating system will have bash installed, but it is essentially guaranteed that it will have sh.
However, if a person really wants to run your scripts, he can probably install the interpreter for which they were written.
So choosing bash as some sort of middle-ground isn't really justifiable.
Comments
If you really want your scripts to be portable, you should probably write them in POSIX sh. There might be a high probability that any given machine with a Unix-like operating system will have bash installed, but it is essentially guaranteed that it will have sh.
However, if a person really wants to run your scripts, he can probably install the interpreter for which they were written.
So choosing bash as some sort of middle-ground isn't really justifiable.
When it probably covers mostly all computers that will run your script, I don't see why it isn't a good compromise.
dawg, where isn't bash these days?