4 ms·

Do you know anyone with a 10k .bashrc?

by dfc 13y ago

eblume 13y ago
I know people with well more than that, particularly when you factor in 'oh my zsh' and its ilk.
- dfc 13y ago
  I am not sure I would include oh-my-zsh as someone's personal zshrc. Moreover I thought OP had made a distinction between bash (10k) and zsh (1k) so I am not sure how o-m-z counts as a bashrc? I will take your word for it but I cant imagine what people put in there bashrc to get to 10k. The entire bash-it repository is 8,588 and over a third of it is bash completions which seems to duplicate the majority of what is already provided by bash-completion. And I am not sure that bash-completion is really "my .bashrc." $ cd bash-it $ sloccount ./ ...SNIP... SLOC Directory SLOC-by-Language (Sorted) 3198 completion sh=3198 3168 plugins sh=3168 1081 themes sh=1081 748 lib sh=748 242 aliases sh=242 135 top_dir sh=135 16 template sh=16 0 custom (none) Totals grouped by language (dominant language first): sh: 8588 (100.00%) Are there some big bashrc customizations that I might be overlooking? edited to reflect distinction between parent and grandparent comment
  - eblume 13y ago
    Sorry, I'm not the parent commenter.
AlexMax 13y ago
My apologies, I was being a little facetious. Just a little. :) The size difference was based on my intuition that when I maintained my own .bashrc and .zshrc, I was able to "get away" with fewer total lines in my .zshrc than my .bashrc. I remember my .bashrc being dozens of pages, my .zshrc was only a couple. Compare that to my fish init file...all it does is set a few paths and aliases and turn off the greeting, because everything else just works out of the box for me.
__david__ 13y ago
I just checked, for fun: $ ls -lh .bashrc -rw-r--r-- 1 <me> <me> 10k Jul 26 13:31 .bashrc Yep. It's also remarkably fast because I took great effort to optimize the parts that happen the most. Shell is actually pretty fast if you don't fork and exec all the time...
- dfc 13y ago
  What do you have in it that takes up so much space? FYI: I'm not being argumentative, I am genuinely curious.
  - __david__ 13y ago
    Well, it's about 400 lines total. Roughly 40% of that is PATH handling functions: add_to, append_to, replace_in, remove_from, prefix and unprefix. They're used like: add_to PATH /usr/sbin prefix and unprefix are a macro for a bunch of standard replace_in/remove_froms: prefix() { replace_in PATH "$1/bin" replace_in PATH "$1/sbin" replace_in PATH "$1/lib/ccache" replace_in MANPATH "$1/share/man" replace_in MANPATH "$1/man" replace_in PKG_CONFIG_PATH "$1/lib/pkgconfig" ...etc. So that later I can do stuff like: prefix /usr/local prefix /usr/local/brew prefix /usr/local/ports ...All of which are managed by different package managers (stow, brew, ports). All that stuff is the part I optimized so that it only uses bash built-ins and never execs. Converting that away from sed/perl shaved about 8 seconds off my startup time (it's now so fast I don't notice it). The next 20% is interactive stuff. Setting up the prompt, aliases, stty, etc. This is generally more complicated than it technically needs to be because it's cross platform so it'll run on any unix-y thing with no changes. Then remaining 40% is a big chunk of shell functions that are mostly unused in my day-to-day life, but kept there to jog my memory if I need to do a certain task. That adds up to 100%, but it's also worth noting that 27% of that is blank lines and comments.

Do you know anyone with a 10k .bashrc?

by dfc 13y ago

Do you know anyone with a 10k .bashrc?

eblume 13y ago

I know people with well more than that, particularly when you factor in 'oh my zsh' and its ilk.

dfc 13y ago
I am not sure I would include oh-my-zsh as someone's personal zshrc. Moreover I thought OP had made a distinction between bash (10k) and zsh (1k) so I am not sure how o-m-z counts as a bashrc? I will take your word for it but I cant imagine what people put in there bashrc to get to 10k. The entire bash-it repository is 8,588 and over a third of it is bash completions which seems to duplicate the majority of what is already provided by bash-completion. And I am not sure that bash-completion is really "my .bashrc." $ cd bash-it $ sloccount ./ ...SNIP... SLOC Directory SLOC-by-Language (Sorted) 3198 completion sh=3198 3168 plugins sh=3168 1081 themes sh=1081 748 lib sh=748 242 aliases sh=242 135 top_dir sh=135 16 template sh=16 0 custom (none) Totals grouped by language (dominant language first): sh: 8588 (100.00%) Are there some big bashrc customizations that I might be overlooking? edited to reflect distinction between parent and grandparent comment
- eblume 13y ago
  Sorry, I'm not the parent commenter.

AlexMax 13y ago

My apologies, I was being a little facetious. Just a little. :) The size difference was based on my intuition that when I maintained my own .bashrc and .zshrc, I was able to "get away" with fewer total lines in my .zshrc than my .bashrc. I remember my .bashrc being dozens of pages, my .zshrc was only a couple. Compare that to my fish init file...all it does is set a few paths and aliases and turn off the greeting, because everything else just works out of the box for me.

__david__ 13y ago

I just checked, for fun: $ ls -lh .bashrc -rw-r--r-- 1 <me> <me> 10k Jul 26 13:31 .bashrc Yep. It's also remarkably fast because I took great effort to optimize the parts that happen the most. Shell is actually pretty fast if you don't fork and exec all the time...

dfc 13y ago
What do you have in it that takes up so much space? FYI: I'm not being argumentative, I am genuinely curious.
- __david__ 13y ago
  Well, it's about 400 lines total. Roughly 40% of that is PATH handling functions: add_to, append_to, replace_in, remove_from, prefix and unprefix. They're used like: add_to PATH /usr/sbin prefix and unprefix are a macro for a bunch of standard replace_in/remove_froms: prefix() { replace_in PATH "$1/bin" replace_in PATH "$1/sbin" replace_in PATH "$1/lib/ccache" replace_in MANPATH "$1/share/man" replace_in MANPATH "$1/man" replace_in PKG_CONFIG_PATH "$1/lib/pkgconfig" ...etc. So that later I can do stuff like: prefix /usr/local prefix /usr/local/brew prefix /usr/local/ports ...All of which are managed by different package managers (stow, brew, ports). All that stuff is the part I optimized so that it only uses bash built-ins and never execs. Converting that away from sed/perl shaved about 8 seconds off my startup time (it's now so fast I don't notice it). The next 20% is interactive stuff. Setting up the prompt, aliases, stty, etc. This is generally more complicated than it technically needs to be because it's cross platform so it'll run on any unix-y thing with no changes. Then remaining 40% is a big chunk of shell functions that are mostly unused in my day-to-day life, but kept there to jog my memory if I need to do a certain task. That adds up to 100%, but it's also worth noting that 27% of that is blank lines and comments.