Sign up ×
Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems. It's 100% free, no registration required.

There are two syntaxes for command substitution: with dollar-parentheses and with backticks. Running top -p $(pidof init) and top -p `pidof init` gives the same output. Are these two ways of doing the same thing, or are there differences?

share|improve this question
See also: BashFAQ/082. – Dennis Williamson Jan 13 '11 at 16:38
For a second there I thought this was a jQuery question. – David Murdoch Jan 13 '11 at 20:42
The result might depend on the shell - some support both. – artdanil Feb 15 '11 at 22:33

5 Answers 5

up vote 282 down vote accepted

The old-style backquotes ` ` do treat backslashes and nesting a bit different. The new-style $() interprets everything in between ( ) as a command.

echo $(uname | $(echo cat))

echo `uname | `echo cat``
bash: command substitution: line 2: syntax error: unexpected end of file
echo cat

works if the nested backquotes are escaped:

echo `uname | \`echo cat\``

backslash fun:

echo $(echo '\\')

echo `echo '\\'`

The new-style $() applies to all POSIX-conformant shells.
As mouviciel pointed out, old-style ` ` might be necessary for older shells.

Apart from the technical point of view, the old-style ` ` has also a visual disadvantage:

  • Hard to notice: I like $(program) better than `program`
  • Easily confused with a single quote: '`'`''`''`'`''`'
  • Not so easy to type (maybe not even on the standard layout of the keyboard)

(and SE uses ` ` for own purpose, it was a pain writing this answer :)

share|improve this answer
The only thing I would add, is that I call '(' a paren, not a bracket (which is '['). – Kendall Helmstetter Gelner Jan 13 '11 at 18:09
You deserve all kinds of upvotes simply for managing to type so many backticks. – Jefromi Jan 13 '11 at 18:39
@Jefromi: ...and, he got them. :) – Jander Jan 13 '11 at 20:16
@Sam: { } is usually called "curly brackets" or "braces" – Jørn Schou-Rode Jan 13 '11 at 21:35
@slim I don't know on US/UK keyboards, but on spanish keyboards ` is a dead key, so I have to type either a double-backtick (something I usually forget I can even do) or backtick then space, which is a pain. – Darkhogg Apr 4 '14 at 16:39

Obvious difference I observe is that you cannot nest backticks while you can nest $(). Maybe both exist for legacy reasons. Similarly, the . and source commands are synonyms.

share|improve this answer
Some Bourne-derived shells don't recognize source. Dash is one example. – Dennis Williamson Jan 13 '11 at 16:40
That's not true. You can nest backtick to any level, just more painfully. Note that both $(...) and `...` are standard (the latter being deprecated) while . is standard but not source – Stéphane Chazelas Oct 25 '12 at 10:17
Correction, only in (t)csh can they not be nested. (t)csh don't support $(...) though. They do support source (and not .) though. – Stéphane Chazelas Aug 1 '14 at 12:28

$() does not work with old Bourne shell. But it has been years since I worked with old Bourne shell.

share|improve this answer

Another note, $() will use more system resource than using backticks, but is slightly faster.

In Mastering Unix shell scripting, Randal K. Michael had done a test in a chapter named "24 Ways to Process a File Line-by-Line".

share|improve this answer
This claim is nonsense. There is no reason why it should be faster as it is just using a different notation for the parser. – schily Sep 6 at 13:17
@schily: Maybe, I only quote from the book, you can read it for more details. – cuonglm Sep 6 at 15:19

The $() syntax will not work with the old bourne shell.
With newer shells ` ` and $() are equivalent but $() is much more convenient to use when you need to nest multiple commands.

For instance :

echo $(basename $(dirname $(dirname /var/adm/sw/save )))

is easier to type and debug than :

echo `basename \`dirname \\\`dirname /var/adm/sw/save \\\`\``
share|improve this answer
While $() may look nice, it is a pain when implementing a related parser because it requires a dual recursive parser. – schily Sep 6 at 13:18
@schily On the other side, what would be a shell without a good parser. – Emmanuel Sep 8 at 15:58
The problem is that you need to know where the string ends before you call the parser. This is relatively simple with the backticks, but it is hard with brackets as they are used for various purposes in the shell. So you need the parser twice and in a way that does not exist in the Bourne Shell. – schily Sep 8 at 20:04

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.