5 ms·

For being a pinnacle it is really unsatisfying. It tells you very little about how or what programs can be composed. It's either trial and error or reading ma

For being a pinnacle it is really unsatisfying. It tells you very little about how or what programs can be composed. It's either trial and error or reading man pages. In addition every program has to be written to take in anything as there are no constraints. Function composition via types is a much more satisfying take on this problem. It's too bad Unix is regarded as the holy grail of this technique when it barely provides a passable implementation of it. Text just isn't a great medium for IPC.

nine_k 11y ago
Unix commands happily pass around binary streams of any format. The problem is, as you noticed, there is not schema, no uniform (let alone machine-readable) description of accepted / emitted formats. Composability is possible but not entirely trivial, often with a dose of `grep` / `sed` / `cut` between commands. It's also pretty hard to pass a function to a Unix command. Either your command supports its own syntax (grep, find), or you make do writing a loop or a temporary file.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  "It's also pretty hard to pass a function to a Unix command." On this and a few other points, it would be interesting to allow a process to call out to the shell that it's running below ("... if any" being one of several issues with the idea).
  - qwertyuiop924 11y ago
    ... Well, you can pass a string to exec into a command. in fact, unix has its own map like command based on this. It's called xargs.
    - dllthomas 11y ago
      You can, but that's a different thing - creating a new shell as a child of the command, rather than talking to the parent shell of the command.
      - qwertyuiop924 11y ago
        Why would you want to do that? I'm kind of curious. I mean, I'm sure you have an application, I just can't think of one. Blub effect, I guess.
        dllthomas 11y ago
        I've hit a number of small "oh, I could do that if..." use cases over the years; none is really immediately springing to mind. There are things that a shell function can do that a spawned program cannot - mostly to do with affecting shell state. Updating shell variables and opening file descriptors are obvious examples.
        qwertyuiop924 11y ago
        This is one of the reasons shell languages feel kind of functional. But they're not really designed like a functional language so they feel kind of clunky. On the subject of "oh, I could do that if..." I know exactly how you feel. I really want the ability to pass multiple filestreams to a command, so you could, say, use cat on the outputs of two commands. Assuming the syntax was @`<pipeline>`, It would like something like this: foo|grep bar|cat @`baz|grep bar`|sort -rn|tail The above script assumes that the commands foo and baz are generating lines with time signatures at the start, and then checking for the most recent entries. I chose the @` syntax for its similarity to the lisp @, syntax, but it could be anything. Unfortunately, I think the only way to do this would be to monkey-patch either open(2) or fopen(2), probably both, which would be a Really Bad Idea (tm).
        dllthomas 11y ago
        I'm not exactly sure what semantics you intend, it seems like you might be able to spell this { foo; baz; } | grep bar | sort -rn | tail or, in bash only: cat <(foo | grep bar) <(baz | grep bar) | sort -rn | tail This is assuming you didn't intend interleaving, for which the second syntax would work but you'd need something other than cat.
jfb 11y ago
I don't know if the problem is text as much as it is the pissweak type system that the whole POSIX environment supports. The other big beef I have is with the total donkey circus that are the interfaces to the various tools. They're ridden with terrible special cases and mutually contradictory parameters and only make sense to poor bastards like myself who've spent years using them to build ad-hoc programs.
leoc 11y ago
People seem to have forgotten that when Perl evolved from being a better AWK to the paradigm example of the modern "scripting language", Larry Wall explicitly described this as a rejection of the Unix small-tools philosophy. http://www.linux-mag.com/id/322/ http://www.linux-mag.com/id/322/ ("But Perl was actually much more countercultural than you might think. It was intended to subvert the Unix philosophy. More specifically, it was intended to subvert that part of Unix philosophy that said that every tool should do only one thing and do that one thing well.") http://www.wall.org/~larry/pm.html http://www.wall.org/~larry/pm.html The fact that getting things done with a Perlesque scripting language is now seen as the height of purist Unix propriety only shows how far gone the original Unix ideal now is. But moving to the scripting-glue model doesn't really get rid of small tools that endeavour to do one thing well, it just reimplements them inside the scripting-language universe as functions/objects, though with a more expressive and less burdensome common language that makes it easier for them to stay small while being correct and effective. The more expressive their shared language, the smaller a set of tools can be. > Text just isn't a great medium for IPC. Yes, in retrospect Unix's determination to know about nothing but binary or plaintext blobs and streams looks like an adolescent rebellion against the (apparently - I haven't used them) clunky record structures of '60s operating systems.
qwertyuiop924 11y ago
I never said it was the pinnacle of composition of programs. I did say it popularized it. >Text just isn't a great medium for IPC. Yeah, text does suck for IPC. The problem is, everything else sucks even more.

nine_k 11y ago

Unix commands happily pass around binary streams of any format. The problem is, as you noticed, there is not schema, no uniform (let alone machine-readable) description of accepted / emitted formats. Composability is possible but not entirely trivial, often with a dose of `grep` / `sed` / `cut` between commands. It's also pretty hard to pass a function to a Unix command. Either your command supports its own syntax (grep, find), or you make do writing a loop or a temporary file.

dllthomas 11y ago
"It's also pretty hard to pass a function to a Unix command." On this and a few other points, it would be interesting to allow a process to call out to the shell that it's running below ("... if any" being one of several issues with the idea).
- qwertyuiop924 11y ago
  ... Well, you can pass a string to exec into a command. in fact, unix has its own map like command based on this. It's called xargs.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    You can, but that's a different thing - creating a new shell as a child of the command, rather than talking to the parent shell of the command.
    - qwertyuiop924 11y ago
      Why would you want to do that? I'm kind of curious. I mean, I'm sure you have an application, I just can't think of one. Blub effect, I guess.
      - dllthomas 11y ago
        I've hit a number of small "oh, I could do that if..." use cases over the years; none is really immediately springing to mind. There are things that a shell function can do that a spawned program cannot - mostly to do with affecting shell state. Updating shell variables and opening file descriptors are obvious examples.
        qwertyuiop924 11y ago
        This is one of the reasons shell languages feel kind of functional. But they're not really designed like a functional language so they feel kind of clunky. On the subject of "oh, I could do that if..." I know exactly how you feel. I really want the ability to pass multiple filestreams to a command, so you could, say, use cat on the outputs of two commands. Assuming the syntax was @`<pipeline>`, It would like something like this: foo|grep bar|cat @`baz|grep bar`|sort -rn|tail The above script assumes that the commands foo and baz are generating lines with time signatures at the start, and then checking for the most recent entries. I chose the @` syntax for its similarity to the lisp @, syntax, but it could be anything. Unfortunately, I think the only way to do this would be to monkey-patch either open(2) or fopen(2), probably both, which would be a Really Bad Idea (tm).
        dllthomas 11y ago
        I'm not exactly sure what semantics you intend, it seems like you might be able to spell this { foo; baz; } | grep bar | sort -rn | tail or, in bash only: cat <(foo | grep bar) <(baz | grep bar) | sort -rn | tail This is assuming you didn't intend interleaving, for which the second syntax would work but you'd need something other than cat.

jfb 11y ago

I don't know if the problem is text as much as it is the pissweak type system that the whole POSIX environment supports. The other big beef I have is with the total donkey circus that are the interfaces to the various tools. They're ridden with terrible special cases and mutually contradictory parameters and only make sense to poor bastards like myself who've spent years using them to build ad-hoc programs.

leoc 11y ago

People seem to have forgotten that when Perl evolved from being a better AWK to the paradigm example of the modern "scripting language", Larry Wall explicitly described this as a rejection of the Unix small-tools philosophy. http://www.linux-mag.com/id/322/ http://www.linux-mag.com/id/322/ ("But Perl was actually much more countercultural than you might think. It was intended to subvert the Unix philosophy. More specifically, it was intended to subvert that part of Unix philosophy that said that every tool should do only one thing and do that one thing well.") http://www.wall.org/~larry/pm.html http://www.wall.org/~larry/pm.html The fact that getting things done with a Perlesque scripting language is now seen as the height of purist Unix propriety only shows how far gone the original Unix ideal now is. But moving to the scripting-glue model doesn't really get rid of small tools that endeavour to do one thing well, it just reimplements them inside the scripting-language universe as functions/objects, though with a more expressive and less burdensome common language that makes it easier for them to stay small while being correct and effective. The more expressive their shared language, the smaller a set of tools can be. > Text just isn't a great medium for IPC. Yes, in retrospect Unix's determination to know about nothing but binary or plaintext blobs and streams looks like an adolescent rebellion against the (apparently - I haven't used them) clunky record structures of '60s operating systems.

qwertyuiop924 11y ago

I never said it was the pinnacle of composition of programs. I did say it popularized it. >Text just isn't a great medium for IPC. Yeah, text does suck for IPC. The problem is, everything else sucks even more.