4 ms·
Maybe, but the main advantage of `zx` (at least for me) is that I don't have to manage another language environment. I can keep everything contained within Node
by alexghr 5y ago
Maybe, but the main advantage of `zx` (at least for me) is that I don't have to manage another language environment. I can keep everything contained within Node :)
- dogma1138 5y agoThe problem is Node, especially all the packages that you’ll end up using under the hood, it’s seems quite risky especially if you don’t have super tight control over your Node SBOM. Would be a bit more interesting to me if it was a JS shell built from the ground up without the entire mess of the Node package dependency baggage.
- alexghr 5y agoWhile I agree that Node's ecosystem is not the best, it's what we have in the frontend world. If you're working on a Node-based service or React app, you already have to deal with Node and its package ecosystem. Adding a couple of extra MB (or even KB, depending on package reuse) on top of your existing chain of dependencies is a tiny con to the huge benefit of not having to do logic in Bash :)
- dogma1138 5y agoThe problem is that you don’t always know what is actually being executed, shell scripting is risky as it is without the rabbit hole that is the Node dependencies system.
- ptx 5y agoThere's always WSH if you're on Windows and will settle for ECMAScript 3. No external dependencies or runtime needed.
- arve0 5y agozx has a small dependency tree, 12 packages marked as "@types" and 36 regular packages[0]. If you are fluent in Node, it should be easy to avoid further dependencies. 0: https://arve0.github.io/npm-download-size/#zx https://arve0.github.io/npm-download-size/#zx
- mikevm 5y agoWhat is there to manage? Python comes built-in with pretty much every distro, and you only have to install one package.