4 ms·

Totally agree with this. We need to create shells based popular languages so language syntax stops being a barrier to entry for new people. How many times do we

Totally agree with this. We need to create shells based popular languages so language syntax stops being a barrier to entry for new people. How many times do we search for "if statement bash" or "function bash" because the if and function syntax isn't modern and isn't easy to remember? Transforming the shell is a great opportunity for a new project, and as you said should probably should be done in Python or JS. Lua is a good option as well for its elegance, though it's a bit less popular than the others. As for Z.lua, this is an interesting project and I really like seeing modern languages enriching what we do every day on the command line. Very cool!

chubot 8y ago
That's the motivation behind my Oil project: Why Create a New Unix Shell? http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/01/28.html http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/01/28.html I took a very long route to doing it though, first implementing OSH (which will run existing shell scripts, which is close to done, but slow) and then Oil (a new language, not implemented). This is because POSIX shell/bash has a really strong network effect. zsh and fish are better in many respects, but people are locked into bash because that's what "everybody else uses". It's analogous to how C has a really strong network effect because e.g. every kernel is written in C. So C++ became a popular language in a large part because it's compatible with C. (Though the analogy breaks down because the Oil language isn't a superset of bash, so we can break free of legacy. The project is though.) In my mind, I think of Oil as a mix between Python and shell, with some elements of Ruby and JS (blocks, function literals, etc.)
- ariabuckles 8y ago
  I love what you're doing with Oil! Looking forward to trying the interactive version in the future :) And yes, network effects are so important—your C++ example is spot on. One recent example that comes to mind is the adoption from python2 to python3, showing just how big a barrier those network effects are to adopting something incompatible.
  - chubot 8y ago
    Thanks! I'm writing a blog post now about how I got the majority of bash-completion running, so I'm now using OSH myself. This is the biggest milestone in a long time! It exposed the slowness issue though. I have a plan for that, but it's a bunch of work. It will help me if people try it and give feedback -- I'll give details in the post. I definitely agree about Python 2/3. I think you basically can't overestimate the amount of inertia a popular language has. I'm sure there will be patches floating around for Python 2 for a long time after the core team stops maintaining it next year. Another example is all the compile-to-JS languages. I think TypeScript is the most popular in part because its transition path is the easiest, i.e. it's a superset of JS.
    - ariabuckles 8y ago
      That’s awesome! I’d love to try it; details in an upcoming blog post?
- nijaru 8y ago
  how's oil going? I haven't looked into it in about a year or so, but it seemed like a cool project
  - chubot 8y ago
    There will be a big status update in a few days here: http://www.oilshell.org/blog/ http://www.oilshell.org/blog/ Or you can subscribe in one of these places :) https://www.reddit.com/r/oilshell https://www.reddit.com/r/oilshell https://twitter.com/oilshellblog https://twitter.com/oilshellblog
ariabuckles 8y ago
Oh right, I forgot lua! I love lua and would enjoy that shell (and the metaprogramming available makes it much easier to let unknown commands call programs, which I've tried once). But I expect for adoption it'll need to be a more widely-used langauge
saghm 8y ago
> How many times do we search for "if statement bash" or "function bash" because the if and function syntax isn't modern and isn't easy to remember? The number of times I've used a for loop in shell is roughly equal to the number of times I've had to look up how to use a for loop in shell. Relatedly, I generally switch to Ruby when my scripts get complex enough to require control flow.
- boomlinde 8y ago
  For some tasks I find myself writing my scripts in bash with a bunch of python herefiles. Bash is pretty straight forward when it comes to text stream processing and tool integration but for anything more the herefiles are a good way to avoid figuring out bash control flow and messing with list delimiters
kevin_thibedeau 8y ago
#!/bin/env/poplang
bdukic 8y ago
Agreed, I always feel like there is so much great shell-related code scattered all over people's dotfiles and we could all benefit from a kind of modernization you and the parent are mentioning. This is my attempt so solve a small personal pain point in the shell while trying to keep track of various commands: https://github.com/bonidjukic/aka https://github.com/bonidjukic/aka It definitely comes nothing close to the Z.lua, but the enjoyment generated from getting to write the thing which optimizes even the tiniest parts of your daily tasks is quite wonderful.
ksherlock 8y ago
If you're using bash, there's a usable help builtin. help help if help function etc.

chubot 8y ago

That's the motivation behind my Oil project: Why Create a New Unix Shell? http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/01/28.html http://www.oilshell.org/blog/2018/01/28.html I took a very long route to doing it though, first implementing OSH (which will run existing shell scripts, which is close to done, but slow) and then Oil (a new language, not implemented). This is because POSIX shell/bash has a really strong network effect. zsh and fish are better in many respects, but people are locked into bash because that's what "everybody else uses". It's analogous to how C has a really strong network effect because e.g. every kernel is written in C. So C++ became a popular language in a large part because it's compatible with C. (Though the analogy breaks down because the Oil language isn't a superset of bash, so we can break free of legacy. The project is though.) In my mind, I think of Oil as a mix between Python and shell, with some elements of Ruby and JS (blocks, function literals, etc.)

ariabuckles 8y ago
I love what you're doing with Oil! Looking forward to trying the interactive version in the future :) And yes, network effects are so important—your C++ example is spot on. One recent example that comes to mind is the adoption from python2 to python3, showing just how big a barrier those network effects are to adopting something incompatible.
- chubot 8y ago
  Thanks! I'm writing a blog post now about how I got the majority of bash-completion running, so I'm now using OSH myself. This is the biggest milestone in a long time! It exposed the slowness issue though. I have a plan for that, but it's a bunch of work. It will help me if people try it and give feedback -- I'll give details in the post. I definitely agree about Python 2/3. I think you basically can't overestimate the amount of inertia a popular language has. I'm sure there will be patches floating around for Python 2 for a long time after the core team stops maintaining it next year. Another example is all the compile-to-JS languages. I think TypeScript is the most popular in part because its transition path is the easiest, i.e. it's a superset of JS.
  - ariabuckles 8y ago
    That’s awesome! I’d love to try it; details in an upcoming blog post?
nijaru 8y ago
how's oil going? I haven't looked into it in about a year or so, but it seemed like a cool project
- chubot 8y ago
  There will be a big status update in a few days here: http://www.oilshell.org/blog/ http://www.oilshell.org/blog/ Or you can subscribe in one of these places :) https://www.reddit.com/r/oilshell https://www.reddit.com/r/oilshell https://twitter.com/oilshellblog https://twitter.com/oilshellblog

ariabuckles 8y ago

Oh right, I forgot lua! I love lua and would enjoy that shell (and the metaprogramming available makes it much easier to let unknown commands call programs, which I've tried once). But I expect for adoption it'll need to be a more widely-used langauge

saghm 8y ago

> How many times do we search for "if statement bash" or "function bash" because the if and function syntax isn't modern and isn't easy to remember? The number of times I've used a for loop in shell is roughly equal to the number of times I've had to look up how to use a for loop in shell. Relatedly, I generally switch to Ruby when my scripts get complex enough to require control flow.

boomlinde 8y ago
For some tasks I find myself writing my scripts in bash with a bunch of python herefiles. Bash is pretty straight forward when it comes to text stream processing and tool integration but for anything more the herefiles are a good way to avoid figuring out bash control flow and messing with list delimiters

kevin_thibedeau 8y ago

#!/bin/env/poplang

bdukic 8y ago

Agreed, I always feel like there is so much great shell-related code scattered all over people's dotfiles and we could all benefit from a kind of modernization you and the parent are mentioning. This is my attempt so solve a small personal pain point in the shell while trying to keep track of various commands: https://github.com/bonidjukic/aka https://github.com/bonidjukic/aka It definitely comes nothing close to the Z.lua, but the enjoyment generated from getting to write the thing which optimizes even the tiniest parts of your daily tasks is quite wonderful.

ksherlock 8y ago

If you're using bash, there's a usable help builtin. help help if help function etc.