6 ms·

SharpScript

156 points by mythz 7y ago

XJ6 7y ago
Is there a license page? I can't see one which is a shame.
- brixon 7y ago
  Mentions it at the bottom, but looks like you need to go here: https://www.nuget.org/packages/ServiceStack.Common https://www.nuget.org/packages/ServiceStack.Common
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- mythz 7y ago
  It's completely free to use as mentioned at the bottom of the home page: https://sharpscript.net/#free https://sharpscript.net/#free The source code for ServiceStack.Common is inside the https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack repo The sharpscript.net website itself (written in #Script Pages) is at https://github.com/ServiceStack/sharpscript https://github.com/ServiceStack/sharpscript
  - qes 7y ago
    For now. That's how all of ServiceStack used to be. They don't have any problem changing the license for all future versions whenever they feel like it.
    - mythz 7y ago
      That’s how it will always be. You can’t retract an OSS license, and the old ServiceStack v3 you're referring to continues to be available 6 years later: https://github.com/ServiceStackV3/ServiceStackV3 https://github.com/ServiceStackV3/ServiceStackV3
- chc 7y ago
  It says on the home page that it's part of ServiceStack.Common, and covered by the same terms: https://servicestack.net/terms https://servicestack.net/terms Unfortunately, this appears to mean it is not free software (though it is gratis for some use cases).
  - TAForObvReasons 7y ago
    The actual Project repo https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack appears to be AGPL3 with some exceptions, which probably explains why the info is buried
    - mythz 7y ago
      The Exceptions are for OSS projects, where it can be used as the OSS license for that project. Regardless it's completely free to use for both commercial/non-commercial usage.
      - jaxbot 7y ago
        If I make project Foo, which leverages #Script, and make Foo MIT-licensed, by your statement #Script is now also MIT licensed in this project. So then Company Blah wants to use Foo, which happens to just be thin wrapper/modification around #Script, and is now permitted to take it and fork it into closed-source repos, yes? That is what this statement implies. Regardless, this is why getting clever with software licenses, and giving guarantees in the form of comments instead of actual license legalese, is problematic. The intention might be clear, but the governance is only by law, and this appears to be in conflict with your statements.
        mythz 7y ago
        ServiceStack's usage in OSS projects is covered in its License: https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/blob/master/license.txt https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/blob/master/lic... i.e. It can be used as AGPL as-is, in addition it can be used in OSS projects under that license (to enable compatibility with the project) provided that the OSS Software remains OSS and provides complete source code for any additions. Although this AGPL/FLOSS Exception License only applies when you're creating your own distributions of ServiceStack from source code (i.e. very rare). This dual license option was added to allow OSS projects to use ServiceStack for free without paying for a commercial license, if that's not you, you can ignore this license option even exists. All ServiceStack packages on NuGet are released under the commercial license [1] of which only requires a developer license when it exceeds the free usage quotas [2] which are only in ServiceStack commercial products namely the ServiceStack Web Service Framework, OrmLite [3], ServiceStack.Redis [4] and PocoDynamo [5]. All other ServiceStack Software inc. all client libraries, inc. Serialization and ServiceStack.Common (containing #Script) are unrestricted libraries which can be used for free without a commercial Developers license in both commercial/non-commercial projects. [1] https://servicestack.net/terms https://servicestack.net/terms [2] https://servicestack.net/download#free-quotas https://servicestack.net/download#free-quotas [3] https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.OrmLite https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.OrmLite [4] https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.Redis https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.Redis [5] https://github.com/ServiceStack/PocoDynamo#pocodynamo https://github.com/ServiceStack/PocoDynamo#pocodynamo
eterps 7y ago
Unfortunate file extension name IMO, but I'm probably just old.
- keymone 7y ago
  Hamburg’s car plates all start with HH and nobody cares (or at least I didn’t find anybody who does).
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    I knew a guy in Stuttgart who wanted a license plate “S-S” and got rejected.
soapdog 7y ago
if the author is reading, be aware that `.ss` is used by a lot of Scheme implementations.
- mythz 7y ago
  ‘.ss’ is the most obvious ext for “SharpScript”, but that only applies for stand-alone scripts where you can also use .html extension since most of time it’s used as a template language inside HTML pages that’s embedded inside a .NET/Core App to provide dynamic scripting, in which case ‘.ss’ is never used.
- elcomet 7y ago
  He should have used '.sh'
  - mythz 7y ago
    .sh is for shell scripts which is the only time where #Script stand-alone .ss scripts are used, overloading .sh would confuse what’s a Bash Script or a #Script Script, which are completely different.
    - Sammi 7y ago
      Woosh
  - WorldMaker 7y ago
    Or the actual Sharp symbol. The plain octothorpe (#) is reserved and unavailable for filenames, but most Unicode-capable file systems should be fine with the Sharp symbol, and I'm sure that wouldn't be confusing at all http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/266f/index.htm http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/266f/index.htm ETA: Of course HN's own Unicode eater doesn't like the Sharp symbol in posts.
- benbristow 7y ago
  Could use 'sscr' perhaps? (although close to scr for screensaver files)
mythz 7y ago
One of its coolest features (just added in the latest release) is Gist Desktop Apps: https://sharpscript.net/docs/gist-desktop-apps https://sharpscript.net/docs/gist-desktop-apps Where Sharp Apps can also be published to Gists where they can be run on-the-fly without installation, they're always up-to-date, have tiny footprints are fast to download and launch that can also run locally, off-line and cross-platform across Windows, macOS and Linux OS's. YouTube demo: https://youtu.be/FlKeaav0gt8 https://youtu.be/FlKeaav0gt8
- kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
  I'll stick with the tried and true "curl attack_vector | sh".
  - mythz 7y ago
    What's the difference to running any installed software? Except when running from a public Gist you can inspect all the Source code before running it, know which verified User Account the software is released under and have a public audit trail of all changes made to the Gist App.
    - merlincorey 7y ago
      As stated in my sibling comment, the issue is akin to the Javascript pad-left fiasco. Package systems (which this essentially is, just at the function level, so to speak) that do not enforce immutable versions are just waiting for exploitation by deletion or update-in-place.
      - mythz 7y ago
        Replied in sibling comment, you can run your local version and never update, you can also run a specific released version that is immutable: https://sharpscript.net/docs/gist-desktop-apps#plugins https://sharpscript.net/docs/gist-desktop-apps#plugins
        7y ago
iddan 7y ago
SS is a problematic extension from historical point of view...
- bdcravens 7y ago
  Not the first use of this file extension: https://filext.com/file-extension/SS https://filext.com/file-extension/SS
felixfbecker 7y ago
Is there any benefit to this over PowerShell?
- mythz 7y ago
  Did you have a look at the features on https://sharpscript.net https://sharpscript.net ? The only time it compares with PowerShell is when it's used to execute Sharp Scripts [1] which is only 1 of its use-cases. You can embed it inside .NET/Core Apps [2], build entire Web Apps with #Script [3], run those Apps from a Gist on-the-fly without an install [4], deploy it on the Server without any CI [5], use it as a replacement to Razor [6], use it to develop Web APIs [7], use it to render emails [8], live documents [9], query Databases, HTTP APIs, AWS/Azure File Storage [1]. All with a familiar JS-expression syntax [10] that's highly extensible [11] and can run in a user-defined sandbox [12] where all functionality available to Scripts running in each Context can be controlled. [1] https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-scripts https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-scripts [2] https://sharpscript.net/docs/introduction https://sharpscript.net/docs/introduction [3] https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-apps https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-apps [4] https://sharpscript.net/docs/gist-desktop-apps https://sharpscript.net/docs/gist-desktop-apps [5] https://sharpscript.net/docs/deploying-sharp-apps https://sharpscript.net/docs/deploying-sharp-apps [6] https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-pages https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-pages [7] https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-apis https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-apis [8] https://sharpscript.net/usecases/email-templates https://sharpscript.net/usecases/email-templates [9] https://sharpscript.net/usecases/live-documents https://sharpscript.net/usecases/live-documents [10] https://sharpscript.net/docs/syntax https://sharpscript.net/docs/syntax [11] https://sharpscript.net/docs/introduction#net-usage https://sharpscript.net/docs/introduction#net-usage [12] https://sharpscript.net/docs/sandbox https://sharpscript.net/docs/sandbox
  - felixfbecker 7y ago
    And which of these things cannot be done with PowerShell?
vxNsr 7y ago
I'm still kinda confused about what the purpose is, it at first sounded like it was a vba-replacement for any .net app but the examples all treat it like a regular scripting language.
- mythz 7y ago
  It's multi-purpose: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20742459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20742459
rishav_sharan 7y ago
Can this interface with nuget libs to crrate desktop apps as well? Can i use it with , say, sdl and create a pong game?
- mythz 7y ago
  Yeah it's an embeddably dynamic scripting language that can be used within .NET Core / .NET Framework Apps: https://sharpscript.net/docs/introduction https://sharpscript.net/docs/introduction To use any library you just need to provide a script method exposing the functionality you want available in your #Script: https://sharpscript.net/docs/methods https://sharpscript.net/docs/methods
  - rishav_sharan 7y ago
    That's fantastic! Color me interested. Just want to point out that the maintainers should make this aspect more prominent in the home page as at a quick glance I thought SS is good only for creating apis/web servers.
    - mythz 7y ago
      Thx for the tip, made the feature more prominent in the home page: https://sharpscript.net https://sharpscript.net

SharpScript

156 points by mythz 7y ago

XJ6 7y ago

Is there a license page? I can't see one which is a shame.

brixon 7y ago
Mentions it at the bottom, but looks like you need to go here: https://www.nuget.org/packages/ServiceStack.Common https://www.nuget.org/packages/ServiceStack.Common
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mythz 7y ago
It's completely free to use as mentioned at the bottom of the home page: https://sharpscript.net/#free https://sharpscript.net/#free The source code for ServiceStack.Common is inside the https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack repo The sharpscript.net website itself (written in #Script Pages) is at https://github.com/ServiceStack/sharpscript https://github.com/ServiceStack/sharpscript
- qes 7y ago
  For now. That's how all of ServiceStack used to be. They don't have any problem changing the license for all future versions whenever they feel like it.
  - mythz 7y ago
    That’s how it will always be. You can’t retract an OSS license, and the old ServiceStack v3 you're referring to continues to be available 6 years later: https://github.com/ServiceStackV3/ServiceStackV3 https://github.com/ServiceStackV3/ServiceStackV3
chc 7y ago
It says on the home page that it's part of ServiceStack.Common, and covered by the same terms: https://servicestack.net/terms https://servicestack.net/terms Unfortunately, this appears to mean it is not free software (though it is gratis for some use cases).
- TAForObvReasons 7y ago
  The actual Project repo https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack appears to be AGPL3 with some exceptions, which probably explains why the info is buried
  - mythz 7y ago
    The Exceptions are for OSS projects, where it can be used as the OSS license for that project. Regardless it's completely free to use for both commercial/non-commercial usage.
    - jaxbot 7y ago
      If I make project Foo, which leverages #Script, and make Foo MIT-licensed, by your statement #Script is now also MIT licensed in this project. So then Company Blah wants to use Foo, which happens to just be thin wrapper/modification around #Script, and is now permitted to take it and fork it into closed-source repos, yes? That is what this statement implies. Regardless, this is why getting clever with software licenses, and giving guarantees in the form of comments instead of actual license legalese, is problematic. The intention might be clear, but the governance is only by law, and this appears to be in conflict with your statements.
      - mythz 7y ago
        ServiceStack's usage in OSS projects is covered in its License: https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/blob/master/license.txt https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack/blob/master/lic... i.e. It can be used as AGPL as-is, in addition it can be used in OSS projects under that license (to enable compatibility with the project) provided that the OSS Software remains OSS and provides complete source code for any additions. Although this AGPL/FLOSS Exception License only applies when you're creating your own distributions of ServiceStack from source code (i.e. very rare). This dual license option was added to allow OSS projects to use ServiceStack for free without paying for a commercial license, if that's not you, you can ignore this license option even exists. All ServiceStack packages on NuGet are released under the commercial license [1] of which only requires a developer license when it exceeds the free usage quotas [2] which are only in ServiceStack commercial products namely the ServiceStack Web Service Framework, OrmLite [3], ServiceStack.Redis [4] and PocoDynamo [5]. All other ServiceStack Software inc. all client libraries, inc. Serialization and ServiceStack.Common (containing #Script) are unrestricted libraries which can be used for free without a commercial Developers license in both commercial/non-commercial projects. [1] https://servicestack.net/terms https://servicestack.net/terms [2] https://servicestack.net/download#free-quotas https://servicestack.net/download#free-quotas [3] https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.OrmLite https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.OrmLite [4] https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.Redis https://github.com/ServiceStack/ServiceStack.Redis [5] https://github.com/ServiceStack/PocoDynamo#pocodynamo https://github.com/ServiceStack/PocoDynamo#pocodynamo

eterps 7y ago

Unfortunate file extension name IMO, but I'm probably just old.

keymone 7y ago
Hamburg’s car plates all start with HH and nobody cares (or at least I didn’t find anybody who does).
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I knew a guy in Stuttgart who wanted a license plate “S-S” and got rejected.

soapdog 7y ago

if the author is reading, be aware that `.ss` is used by a lot of Scheme implementations.

mythz 7y ago
‘.ss’ is the most obvious ext for “SharpScript”, but that only applies for stand-alone scripts where you can also use .html extension since most of time it’s used as a template language inside HTML pages that’s embedded inside a .NET/Core App to provide dynamic scripting, in which case ‘.ss’ is never used.
elcomet 7y ago
He should have used '.sh'
- mythz 7y ago
  .sh is for shell scripts which is the only time where #Script stand-alone .ss scripts are used, overloading .sh would confuse what’s a Bash Script or a #Script Script, which are completely different.
  - Sammi 7y ago
    Woosh
- WorldMaker 7y ago
  Or the actual Sharp symbol. The plain octothorpe (#) is reserved and unavailable for filenames, but most Unicode-capable file systems should be fine with the Sharp symbol, and I'm sure that wouldn't be confusing at all http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/266f/index.htm http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/266f/index.htm ETA: Of course HN's own Unicode eater doesn't like the Sharp symbol in posts.
benbristow 7y ago
Could use 'sscr' perhaps? (although close to scr for screensaver files)

mythz 7y ago

One of its coolest features (just added in the latest release) is Gist Desktop Apps: https://sharpscript.net/docs/gist-desktop-apps https://sharpscript.net/docs/gist-desktop-apps Where Sharp Apps can also be published to Gists where they can be run on-the-fly without installation, they're always up-to-date, have tiny footprints are fast to download and launch that can also run locally, off-line and cross-platform across Windows, macOS and Linux OS's. YouTube demo: https://youtu.be/FlKeaav0gt8 https://youtu.be/FlKeaav0gt8

kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
I'll stick with the tried and true "curl attack_vector | sh".
- mythz 7y ago
  What's the difference to running any installed software? Except when running from a public Gist you can inspect all the Source code before running it, know which verified User Account the software is released under and have a public audit trail of all changes made to the Gist App.
  - merlincorey 7y ago
    As stated in my sibling comment, the issue is akin to the Javascript pad-left fiasco. Package systems (which this essentially is, just at the function level, so to speak) that do not enforce immutable versions are just waiting for exploitation by deletion or update-in-place.
    - mythz 7y ago
      Replied in sibling comment, you can run your local version and never update, you can also run a specific released version that is immutable: https://sharpscript.net/docs/gist-desktop-apps#plugins https://sharpscript.net/docs/gist-desktop-apps#plugins
      - 7y ago

iddan 7y ago

SS is a problematic extension from historical point of view...

bdcravens 7y ago
Not the first use of this file extension: https://filext.com/file-extension/SS https://filext.com/file-extension/SS

felixfbecker 7y ago

Is there any benefit to this over PowerShell?

mythz 7y ago
Did you have a look at the features on https://sharpscript.net https://sharpscript.net ? The only time it compares with PowerShell is when it's used to execute Sharp Scripts [1] which is only 1 of its use-cases. You can embed it inside .NET/Core Apps [2], build entire Web Apps with #Script [3], run those Apps from a Gist on-the-fly without an install [4], deploy it on the Server without any CI [5], use it as a replacement to Razor [6], use it to develop Web APIs [7], use it to render emails [8], live documents [9], query Databases, HTTP APIs, AWS/Azure File Storage [1]. All with a familiar JS-expression syntax [10] that's highly extensible [11] and can run in a user-defined sandbox [12] where all functionality available to Scripts running in each Context can be controlled. [1] https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-scripts https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-scripts [2] https://sharpscript.net/docs/introduction https://sharpscript.net/docs/introduction [3] https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-apps https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-apps [4] https://sharpscript.net/docs/gist-desktop-apps https://sharpscript.net/docs/gist-desktop-apps [5] https://sharpscript.net/docs/deploying-sharp-apps https://sharpscript.net/docs/deploying-sharp-apps [6] https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-pages https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-pages [7] https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-apis https://sharpscript.net/docs/sharp-apis [8] https://sharpscript.net/usecases/email-templates https://sharpscript.net/usecases/email-templates [9] https://sharpscript.net/usecases/live-documents https://sharpscript.net/usecases/live-documents [10] https://sharpscript.net/docs/syntax https://sharpscript.net/docs/syntax [11] https://sharpscript.net/docs/introduction#net-usage https://sharpscript.net/docs/introduction#net-usage [12] https://sharpscript.net/docs/sandbox https://sharpscript.net/docs/sandbox
- felixfbecker 7y ago
  And which of these things cannot be done with PowerShell?

vxNsr 7y ago

I'm still kinda confused about what the purpose is, it at first sounded like it was a vba-replacement for any .net app but the examples all treat it like a regular scripting language.

mythz 7y ago
It's multi-purpose: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20742459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20742459

rishav_sharan 7y ago

Can this interface with nuget libs to crrate desktop apps as well? Can i use it with , say, sdl and create a pong game?

mythz 7y ago
Yeah it's an embeddably dynamic scripting language that can be used within .NET Core / .NET Framework Apps: https://sharpscript.net/docs/introduction https://sharpscript.net/docs/introduction To use any library you just need to provide a script method exposing the functionality you want available in your #Script: https://sharpscript.net/docs/methods https://sharpscript.net/docs/methods
- rishav_sharan 7y ago
  That's fantastic! Color me interested. Just want to point out that the maintainers should make this aspect more prominent in the home page as at a quick glance I thought SS is good only for creating apis/web servers.
  - mythz 7y ago
    Thx for the tip, made the feature more prominent in the home page: https://sharpscript.net https://sharpscript.net