5 ms·
Want to like this tool, but every time I need to use it I’ve gotta relearn the idiosyncratic syntax it uses. Lately I just use Ruby plus a couple of gems instea
by LispSporks22 3y ago
Want to like this tool, but every time I need to use it I’ve gotta relearn the idiosyncratic syntax it uses. Lately I just use Ruby plus a couple of gems instead
- stephenr 3y agoI remember trying to work around some aspect of this tool in a shell tool for a client , and in the end abandoned that, in favour of background tasks and tracking pids, which is kind of astonishing. I don’t actually remember the problem but possibly something to do with how output is handled.
- ElectricalUnion 3y agoAlmost every time I think I want this tool, I end up with a ad-hoc Python script instead, and Python is objectively speaking a terrible language for multiprocessing tasks.
- cempaka 3y agoHuh, I just had the opposite experience. I wanted to parallelize the work of converting a bunch of raw camera images on my laptop to JPGs using ImageMagick, and after looking into what it would take to do it in Ruby I found that `parallel` was the better way to go.
- seized 3y agoI've used it a bunch of times for some giant batch jobs across hundreds or thousands of cores... And I've found it easier to build a job file of the exact commands and redirect that into it.
- caro11ne 3y agoI use paralel often and find the syntax reasonable: cat args | parallel this-program {} parallel this-program {} ::: arg1 arg2 arg3 ... The only really new thing is ::: which separates the program from the arguments if you want to give them directly. Can you show what the syntax should be for it to be intuitive to you?