4 ms·

Is there really a good reason in 2023 to have an interactive command line app? I've seen apps that at least maybe display a web server on localhost and then int

Is there really a good reason in 2023 to have an interactive command line app? I've seen apps that at least maybe display a web server on localhost and then interact with it through the browser Or Electron, etc. I feel like command-line is alienating (deliberately, obviously) a huge portion of potential users. It basically guarantees whatever you made will only get used by tinkerers and not anybody serious (like if I have to pass a proof of concept pet project along to my manager, terminal might make it a non-starter 85% of the time)

graypegg 3y ago
Yes definitely. Being able to easily access them via a remote shell is a killer feature IMO. Being able to pipe + automate is useful too if used non-interactively.
- MuffinFlavored 3y ago
  > Being able to easily access them via a remote shell is a killer feature IMO You mean like being able to access a web page?
  - graypegg 3y ago
    Hah, that is a fair point.
  - wolletd 3y ago
    I have systems that have no web server and don't need one and adding one would add complexity and potential security risks to the system. Administration is only done via SSH. There are just situations where the question goes the other way around: Is there any need for _more_ than a command line interface? No. Anyone competent enough to do anything meaningful on that server is also capable of doing it via command line.
    - MuffinFlavored 3y ago
      I don't disagree with you, I'm just devil's advocating/showing an alternative viewpoint: > Is there any need for _more_ than a command line interface? Reworded: is there any need to make this harder to access than the equivalent of: * kube-forwarder + open Chrome to http://localhost:3000 http://localhost:3000 * ssh -L ... * ngrok ...
      - codetrotter 3y ago
        All of the things you listed are still additional steps compared to just ssh and run the cli tool. Web UIs are nice too, for some things. But for many things, for at lot of us, the cli is where it’s at. And that is where it will continue to be. We use Web UIs for some things, and cli tools for other things.
      - wolletd 3y ago
        From my point of view, I'm not actively making it harder, I just don't make it as simple. My development process usually starts in the terminal, as I am a terminal user and do iterative development there as well as tinkering with system interfaces. A CLI is the natural first product of my development. Building a web interface is additional work. Also, it's been a decade since I have written any reasonable web frontend. Granted, it's not a real TUI with curses and stuff, but I like to do some eye-candy with escape sequences. Because I am the most frequent user of my tools and I always like seeing something I deliberately made look good. :)
    - int_19h 3y ago
      Thing is, if you can establish an SSH connection to the target machine, you can easily tunnel HTTP over that. And it doesn't need to have a dedicated web server service for that; the app can embed a localhost-only HTTP server directly. One could argue that this is extra complexity... but I don't think this argument flies in comparison to "React for CLI", especially once you take into account all the dependencies.
      - muxator 3y ago
bstar77 3y ago
Just look at the "Who's using Ink?" section and that will answer your question.
interroboink 3y ago
> tinkerers and not anybody serious Counterpoint: tinkerers have a lot of overlap with the "serious" users for many CLI apps. People who want no-frills functionality. People who want things to run over N-deep nested SSH hops. Y'know, "unix-y" people (: I use things like ncdu and vim on remote non-graphical systems all the time, for instance. Though I do agree that non-interactive is the primary use-case for most CLI stuff.
paxys 3y ago
1. Command line UIs are still an order of magnitude easier to build than even the most basic web page. 2. Every app doesn't have to target every user in the world. There is an entire category of developer-focused tooling that is very suitable for the command line. 3. There are plenty of contexts where the command line is the only interface available.
- mhink 3y ago
  > Command line UIs are still an order of magnitude easier to build than even the most basic web page. I think by "interactive command-line apps", parent commenter is talking more about "TUI applications" like e.g. `htop` or `vim`- which are persistent/interactive and treat the terminal as an interactive, 2d canvas into which they render the program content. As opposed to what I'd call "normal" CLI applications, which typically render output and expect user input on a line-by-line basis. (Like most REPLs, or the various ctl programs like `kubectl`, `pgctl`, etc.)
lost_tourist 3y ago
* lower bandwidth * easier to write * great if you use terminal only remote * likely faster keyboard interaction when you get used to it. At least that has been my take on the situation
pmarreck 3y ago
The end-user of these things is not manager types... and that is both OK, and probably part of the point. I personally love the growth of fancy, responsive TUI's. SSH-friendliness is a huge feature IMHO.

graypegg 3y ago

Yes definitely. Being able to easily access them via a remote shell is a killer feature IMO. Being able to pipe + automate is useful too if used non-interactively.

MuffinFlavored 3y ago
> Being able to easily access them via a remote shell is a killer feature IMO You mean like being able to access a web page?
- graypegg 3y ago
  Hah, that is a fair point.
- wolletd 3y ago
  I have systems that have no web server and don't need one and adding one would add complexity and potential security risks to the system. Administration is only done via SSH. There are just situations where the question goes the other way around: Is there any need for _more_ than a command line interface? No. Anyone competent enough to do anything meaningful on that server is also capable of doing it via command line.
  - MuffinFlavored 3y ago
    I don't disagree with you, I'm just devil's advocating/showing an alternative viewpoint: > Is there any need for _more_ than a command line interface? Reworded: is there any need to make this harder to access than the equivalent of: * kube-forwarder + open Chrome to http://localhost:3000 http://localhost:3000 * ssh -L ... * ngrok ...
    - codetrotter 3y ago
      All of the things you listed are still additional steps compared to just ssh and run the cli tool. Web UIs are nice too, for some things. But for many things, for at lot of us, the cli is where it’s at. And that is where it will continue to be. We use Web UIs for some things, and cli tools for other things.
    - wolletd 3y ago
      From my point of view, I'm not actively making it harder, I just don't make it as simple. My development process usually starts in the terminal, as I am a terminal user and do iterative development there as well as tinkering with system interfaces. A CLI is the natural first product of my development. Building a web interface is additional work. Also, it's been a decade since I have written any reasonable web frontend. Granted, it's not a real TUI with curses and stuff, but I like to do some eye-candy with escape sequences. Because I am the most frequent user of my tools and I always like seeing something I deliberately made look good. :)
  - int_19h 3y ago
    Thing is, if you can establish an SSH connection to the target machine, you can easily tunnel HTTP over that. And it doesn't need to have a dedicated web server service for that; the app can embed a localhost-only HTTP server directly. One could argue that this is extra complexity... but I don't think this argument flies in comparison to "React for CLI", especially once you take into account all the dependencies.
    - muxator 3y ago

bstar77 3y ago

Just look at the "Who's using Ink?" section and that will answer your question.

interroboink 3y ago

> tinkerers and not anybody serious Counterpoint: tinkerers have a lot of overlap with the "serious" users for many CLI apps. People who want no-frills functionality. People who want things to run over N-deep nested SSH hops. Y'know, "unix-y" people (: I use things like ncdu and vim on remote non-graphical systems all the time, for instance. Though I do agree that non-interactive is the primary use-case for most CLI stuff.

paxys 3y ago

1. Command line UIs are still an order of magnitude easier to build than even the most basic web page. 2. Every app doesn't have to target every user in the world. There is an entire category of developer-focused tooling that is very suitable for the command line. 3. There are plenty of contexts where the command line is the only interface available.

mhink 3y ago
> Command line UIs are still an order of magnitude easier to build than even the most basic web page. I think by "interactive command-line apps", parent commenter is talking more about "TUI applications" like e.g. `htop` or `vim`- which are persistent/interactive and treat the terminal as an interactive, 2d canvas into which they render the program content. As opposed to what I'd call "normal" CLI applications, which typically render output and expect user input on a line-by-line basis. (Like most REPLs, or the various ctl programs like `kubectl`, `pgctl`, etc.)

lost_tourist 3y ago

* lower bandwidth * easier to write * great if you use terminal only remote * likely faster keyboard interaction when you get used to it. At least that has been my take on the situation

pmarreck 3y ago

The end-user of these things is not manager types... and that is both OK, and probably part of the point. I personally love the growth of fancy, responsive TUI's. SSH-friendliness is a huge feature IMHO.