4 ms·
Do they actually convert the output of the existing commands? Or are they reimplementing then one by one? It looks like the latter. In their examples it looks
by sciurus 7y ago
Do they actually convert the output of the existing commands? Or are they reimplementing then one by one? It looks like the latter.
In their examples it looks like 'ls' is built-in to their shell instead of from e.g. coreutils.
- sha666sum 7y agols is a shell builtin. When he types ^ls he uses the one from coreutils.
- JohnBooty 7y agoI love the core idea of nushell, but reimplementing them seems rather insane, given the incalcuable number of programmer-hours that have gone into coreutils. That seems like a real mistake, rather than simply having nushell's "ls" be a wrapper for coreutils "ls -la" or some such. I understand the benefit of reimplementing everything from scratch, as that way you have a more consistent nushell experience everywhere, regardless of which version of "native" ls your system has. And allowing "^ls" is a useful and necessary hedge. But, wow reimplementing nearly everything seems like an enormous undertaking. (It is of course possible that I'm completely misunderstanding things! Perhaps the devs can comment?)
- oblio 7y agoCoreutils has been reimplemented N times: BSD, GNU, BusyBox, the Rust one, countless others I'm forgetting. It's doable.
- lozenge 7y agoCheck the ls man page and remove anything related to sorting, filtering, or formatting information (as under this system all this functionality is provided in a shared and generic way). There is not much left.