4 ms·

do you know alternatives to that? I assume PowerShell but don't know if there's anything beyond that.

• zokier 5y ago
  I remember seeing some academic work on extending shell sematics to more complicated pipe networks, but nothing particularly promising. In industry, I think that is generally the point where people pick up "real" programming language instead of trying to work in shell; on top of my head I imagine golang with its channels and goroutines to be particularly well suited for these sort of problems. I can't say if there is something in golang that shells could adapt somehow.
  • sillysaurusx 5y ago
    But of course you can do the same thing in 30 seconds that Go would take 30 minutes for. Especially if you’re trying to process-substitute a shell pipeline, not just one command.
• lnanek2 5y ago
  You can always setup some named pipes. E.g.: mkfifo named_pipe echo "Hi" > named_pipe & cat named_pipe I used to do this in bash scripts to keep them cleaner and the lines simpler.
  • Too 5y ago
    How does error handling together with this work? Can pipefail catch this or does one explicitly need to ‘wait’ for the background processes and check them there?
    • cerved 5y ago
      Guessing that pipefail cares 0% of which filedescriptors are used and only the exit codes of processes
  • azalemeth 5y ago
    Named pipes and tee (or gnu parallel, depending on the problem) make this semantically much clearer. It's so much better than bracket-and-sed-hell spread out over different lines.
    • gnubison 5y ago
      Where does sed come into this?
      • azalemeth 5y ago
        It doesn't necessarily -- I just meant that if you have <(<(...) <(...)) type structures then adding a punctuation-jumble like command in the middle of each subsubshell is a good way to murder readability quickly. Sed, and to a lesser extent, awk, tend to be good examples of tools that (can) use a _lot_ of brackets and symbols...