6 ms·

I'm all for experimenting with new ideas, however this seems to duplicate all the conceptual shortcomings I see in tmux. First of all, session support and term

I'm all for experimenting with new ideas, however this seems to duplicate all the conceptual shortcomings I see in tmux. First of all, session support and terminal multiplexing are two distinct features which shouldn't be intermingled. What ever happened to the Unix principle of doing one thing and doing it well? My take on this problem is a combination of abduco[1] and dvtm[2]. Next a built in copy mode seems wrong, there is no need to implement vi(m) or emacs key bindings when you can make use of the complete editor. That is why dvtm uses my vim clone vis[3] as a filter: the terminal (scroll back) content is piped to $EDITOR and whatever the editor writes to stdout is kept in a register to be pasted in other terminal windows. Furthermore I think the completion menu should also be implemented as a standalone tool (using e.g. dmenu or slmenu) as is done for the vis file open dialog. As a last point I consider Pyhton not really suitable for core system tools, if you want something more expressible than C then something like Rust would probably have been a better choice. [1] https://github.com/martanne/abduco https://github.com/martanne/abduco [2] https://github.com/martanne/dvtm https://github.com/martanne/dvtm [3] https://github.com/martanne/vis https://github.com/martanne/vis

winestock 11y ago
>What ever happened to the Unix principle of doing one thing and doing it well? Rob Pike has the answer for you. http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/04/10/18/1153211/rob-pike-responds http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/04/10/18/1153211/rob-pi... A Slashdot user named sczimme asked Pike this question: Given the nature of current operating systems and applications, do you think the idea of "one tool doing one job well" has been abandoned? If so, do you think a return to this model would help bring some innovation back to software development? Rob Pike's reply was: Those days are dead and gone and the eulogy was delivered by Perl.
- dwc 11y ago
  The ideas are still useful today, surprisingly often, despite Pike's quote.
- jeff_marshall 11y ago
  I think there is still some nuance available. Perl is great for succinct syntax, which is something I admire (who doesn't appreciate backtick for invoking another program?) This same brevity is valuable in other contexts, but the challenge is in doing it and understanding the implications. So long as such mechanisms don't introduce hidden complexity (e.g. ';' in bash or it's equivalent), succint syntax has my vote. Working in C at a low level and still having to deal with integer overflow shows me that there is definately a middle ground w.r.t. expressivity and details. I'd be happy to see progress in this area.
- ori_b 11y ago
  I read that as "People did't care, as you can see by their choices"
mhuffman 11y ago
I have been pretty happy with screen and mosh[1]. Very, very happy with mosh! https://mosh.mit.edu/ https://mosh.mit.edu/

winestock 11y ago

>What ever happened to the Unix principle of doing one thing and doing it well? Rob Pike has the answer for you. http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/04/10/18/1153211/rob-pike-responds http://interviews.slashdot.org/story/04/10/18/1153211/rob-pi... A Slashdot user named sczimme asked Pike this question: Given the nature of current operating systems and applications, do you think the idea of "one tool doing one job well" has been abandoned? If so, do you think a return to this model would help bring some innovation back to software development? Rob Pike's reply was: Those days are dead and gone and the eulogy was delivered by Perl.

dwc 11y ago
The ideas are still useful today, surprisingly often, despite Pike's quote.
jeff_marshall 11y ago
I think there is still some nuance available. Perl is great for succinct syntax, which is something I admire (who doesn't appreciate backtick for invoking another program?) This same brevity is valuable in other contexts, but the challenge is in doing it and understanding the implications. So long as such mechanisms don't introduce hidden complexity (e.g. ';' in bash or it's equivalent), succint syntax has my vote. Working in C at a low level and still having to deal with integer overflow shows me that there is definately a middle ground w.r.t. expressivity and details. I'd be happy to see progress in this area.
ori_b 11y ago
I read that as "People did't care, as you can see by their choices"

mhuffman 11y ago

I have been pretty happy with screen and mosh[1]. Very, very happy with mosh! https://mosh.mit.edu/ https://mosh.mit.edu/