4 ms·
> I wouldn't want to spend that time one a one off script I only expect to run a few times. You don't have to. No generics, `.clone()` and `.unwrap()` everywhe
by dpc_pw 6y ago
> I wouldn't want to spend that time one a one off script I only expect to run a few times.
You don't have to. No generics, `.clone()` and `.unwrap()` everywhere, and the Rust code goes brrrrr. :D
- kortex 6y agoOr just...not deal with any of that, and literally bash my way through it. I hated the bash learning curve because it's so zany compared to "sane" langs, but once you hit a point in comfort, it's "muck around with syntax for a few minutes, applying to a test case of a few examples, dial it in, and let it rip on a few GBs of data and go work on other things". stringly typed pipes go brrrr XD. Composing unix utilities is horrific and beautiful all at once. Shellcheck helps a ton. Recently started getting into Xonsh cause it still makes piping programs super easy, while being still fairly easy to provision. Really wish there were a (stable) go-based scripting language and shell. There's tengo and some other things, but not primetime ready.
- entha_saava 6y agoThere are some python based ones.
- lenkite 6y agoI thing you may like https://github.com/borkdude/babashka https://github.com/borkdude/babashka
- kenhwang 6y agoI'm laughing at how true this is, but at the same time, if you're doing this, it's probably the one case go excels at.
- dpc_pw 6y agoI would do it with D, but sure: whatever rocks anyones boat. All I'm saying Rust is not particularly worse for writing "quick&dirty" scripts ignoring good design and corner cases. And if any quick&dirty script becomes " important part of our legacy production environment" the story of improving such a script is much better in Rust.