3 ms·

Having used fabric in the past, I've always found it just as easy to use a shell script and make files. There's always some level of bootstrapping a project (i

by bb88 8y ago

Having used fabric in the past, I've always found it just as easy to use a shell script and make files. There's always some level of bootstrapping a project (installing packages/software, compiling libraries and dependencies) where it's easier to just to write a shell script than to program python to do. E.g. How do you get fabric installed on a system? There's also been this longevity of sorts that Make seems to have gotten right. People just keep going back to it because it's simple.

theossuary 8y ago
I've been moving away from using shell scripts in a tools/ directory to using Python Invoke (http://www.pyinvoke.org http://www.pyinvoke.org), which is the library underlying fabric. I used bash scripts for years, but for a lot of reasons made the switch: - It was always painful to create small libraries of functions used across multiple scripts in a project - It's difficult to consistently configure them with per-user settings. I've written bash implementations of settings management, Invoke handles this for me. - I'd still have to reach for Python whenever I needed to do anything with arrays or dicts, etc. - Getting error handling correct can be a chore Invoke has a lot of nice to haves to: - Autogenerated help output - Autocomplete out of the box - Very easy to add tasks, just a Python function - Easy to run shell code when needed - Very powerful config management when needed - Supports namespacing, task dependencies, running multiple tasks at once and deduplicating them It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than my hand rolled scripts were.
- Groxx 8y ago
  it's also far, far, far easier to make it work predictably on multiple platforms. and easier to understand and change later. that can get nightmarishly hard in make/bash, once you go outside the super-simple realm.
- noobermin 8y ago
  Groxx replies hits the point. I might work with a small number of platforms, but the "super-simple" qualifier is the point. The point at which you need dictionaries (associative arrays) in your install script, not to mention settings management beyond a make include is the point at which you've outgrown make.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

by bb88 8y ago

theossuary 8y ago

I've been moving away from using shell scripts in a tools/ directory to using Python Invoke (http://www.pyinvoke.org http://www.pyinvoke.org), which is the library underlying fabric. I used bash scripts for years, but for a lot of reasons made the switch: - It was always painful to create small libraries of functions used across multiple scripts in a project - It's difficult to consistently configure them with per-user settings. I've written bash implementations of settings management, Invoke handles this for me. - I'd still have to reach for Python whenever I needed to do anything with arrays or dicts, etc. - Getting error handling correct can be a chore Invoke has a lot of nice to haves to: - Autogenerated help output - Autocomplete out of the box - Very easy to add tasks, just a Python function - Easy to run shell code when needed - Very powerful config management when needed - Supports namespacing, task dependencies, running multiple tasks at once and deduplicating them It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than my hand rolled scripts were.

Groxx 8y ago
it's also far, far, far easier to make it work predictably on multiple platforms. and easier to understand and change later. that can get nightmarishly hard in make/bash, once you go outside the super-simple realm.
noobermin 8y ago
Groxx replies hits the point. I might work with a small number of platforms, but the "super-simple" qualifier is the point. The point at which you need dictionaries (associative arrays) in your install script, not to mention settings management beyond a make include is the point at which you've outgrown make.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]