6 ms·

> Ignoring include boilerplate and the like leaves us with roughly ten lines of code. I'm not sure you get to claim a language is a scripting language and then

• MereInterest 13y ago
  Well, if you want a REPL for C++, there is always ROOT. Though, for the love of all that is holy in this world, I don't know why they chose to have a REPL for C++. Or why they chose the profoundly ungoogleable name of "ROOT".
  • natejenkins 13y ago
    If you instead search for 'root CERN' the first result is the following: http://root.cern.ch/drupal/ http://root.cern.ch/drupal/
  • pjmlp 13y ago
    It is actually called CINT. http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/cint http://root.cern.ch/drupal/content/cint
• reirob 13y ago
  In Unix shell makes it in 2, with the bang line: #!/bin/sh sort < $1 > $2 My preferred scripting language ;)
  • pestaa 13y ago
    Absolutely yes, up to the point you're working with text. When objects (either implicit or explicit) start to interact with each other, shell scripting falls short quickly.
    • kamaal 13y ago
      'Text' covers a very large domain. Once you get any data to a ordered text form, Unix command line text processing utilities have literally zero competition when it comes succinctness, power and how quickly you can create solutions. Utility of shell goes down. Not because problems are represented as 'Text', but rather shell languages lack features like exception handling, proper error checking and many other things- Which make it difficult to write large programs in it. As a next extension, you can learn Perl. I assure you, after that you will not need anything ever.
      • aboodman 13y ago
        > I assure you, after that you will not need anything ever. I love it when people say things like this. As is their domain is the only domain in all programming. For surely, you could write a competitive web browser in Perl. Or a first person shooter. Or a telecom system. Or a mars orbiter. It makes you wonder why anyone ever invented anything else!
        • recuter 13y ago
          I read his post to mean he is talking about the 'Text' domain of things, not everything. He claims you won't want anything beyond Perl if/when you stick to handling text.
          • aboodman 13y ago
            Oh. On re-reading, that makes sense. I recant my snark.
            • recuter 13y ago
              I don't actually agree with him but I just wanted to thank you for posting the recant. :)
              • marshray 13y ago
  • rofrol 13y ago
    you don't need hashbang if you run it the same like python: sh script.sh python script.py So one line vs two lines import sys open(sys.argv[1],'w').writelines(sorted(open(sys.argv[2]).readlines())) Yep, bash is more readable for small scripts
    • 6ren 13y ago
      faster too $ time sort < t > t-sh real 0m0.016s user 0m0.008s sys 0m0.008s $ time py -c "import sys; open(sys.argv[1],'w').writelines(sorted(open(sys.argv[2]).readlines()))" t-py t real 0m0.088s user 0m0.056s sys 0m0.012s BTW also a different result (I curled this page for the data).
      • tyrion 13y ago
        It is faster mainly because of the startup time of the python interpreter. You can improve performances using the "-S" on the python interpreter. I get inconsistent results with time, I think maybe because of context switching as stated here [1]. See my results here: http://pastebin.com/HMUErzee http://pastebin.com/HMUErzee 1: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9006596/is-the-unix-time-command-accurate-enough-for-benchmarks http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9006596/is-the-unix-time-...
        • rofrol 13y ago
          My results http://pastebin.com/C1crTA1S http://pastebin.com/C1crTA1S Code from https://github.com/rofrol/go-examples https://github.com/rofrol/go-examples
    • tyrion 13y ago
      > Yep, bash is more readable for small scripts I don't agree with that, in my opinion bash is more coincise while python is far more explicit and thus more understandable. Python is not meant to be written in one line; the script could be rewritten in a readable way like this: import sys inp = open(sys.argv[1], 'r') out = open(sys.argv[2], 'w') out.writelines(sorted(inp))
  • usea 13y ago
    Requisite C# one-liner: Main(string[] args) { File.WriteAllLines(args[1], File.ReadAllLines(args[0]).OrderBy(x => x).ToArray()); } Excludes using statements, .net library references. project file, solution file, framework config file... I have invented a language called Croml, in which all source code compiles to the same program. This program reads in a file, sorts the lines, and writes it back out to another file. An empty source file accomplishes this task.
    • frozenport 13y ago
      You are cheating because of all the menus you had to jump through just to make the project :-)
      • foobarred 13y ago
        Use LinqPad then it's not cheating. It becomes: File.WriteAllLines(args[1], File.ReadAllLines(args[0]).OrderBy(x => x));
        • usea 13y ago
          I did actually use LINQPad. My comment was in jest :P However, there's no Main in LINQPad which takes string[] args. Also File.WriteAllLines takes an array as its second parameter, while OrderBy returns an IEnumerable.
  • tyrion 13y ago
    I may be wrong but I think that this is actually spawning a subprocess and thus is not an exact translation of the python example. This bash script rewritten in python should be something like this: import subprocess, sys inp = open(sys.argv[1], 'r') out = open(sys.argv[2], 'w') sys.exit(subprocess.call('sort', stdin=inp, stdout=out, stderr=sys.stderr)) (I don't know why but it seems that the performance of this version are worse than the original proposed example with writelines/readlines)
    • greyfade 13y ago
      It doesn't have to spawn a subprocess. Some shells (like those in Busybox and Toybox) reduce common POSIX userland tools to a function call.
      • robotresearcher 13y ago
        Right. And even it was implemented as a subprocess, it's still idiomatic shell code, i.e. what you would Actually Do.
    • reirob 13y ago
      So what? The Unix Shell library consists of all the executables that are on the system - for me this is the beauty. There is not much of abstraction between the Unix Shell and the system under it. And shell is very tolerant to other programing languages as well - as long as they allow to represent data in text form and through streams or files ;)
      • tyrion 13y ago
        Yes, I know that this is the correct way of doing it in bash. I posted this because someone might test the speed of the two scripts and conclude "bash is faster" while they actually measured the speed of "sort" probably.
        • judk 13y ago
          Microbenchmarks are a distraction. Macrobenchmarks matter. The real problem with bash is the mess you get when you start needing whitespace or arrays or error handling or non tabular objects or a computation not already implemented as a system program.
  • bcoates 13y ago
    It'll work on files (much) larger than RAM, too.
  • facorreia 13y ago
    Don't forget the quotes... sort < "$1" > "$2"
• informatimago 13y ago
  Or one liners: import sys; open(sys.argv[2], 'w').writelines(sorted(open(sys.argv[2], 'w').writelines()) (use-package :com.informatimago.common-lisp.cesarum.file) (setf (string-list-text-file-contents outpath) (sort (string-list-text-file-contents inpath) (function string<))) Indeed, what kills languages like C or C++11 in the scripting domain, is the need for declarations and other kind of boiler plate. That said, with C++11 there are means to write a library requiring less declarations, but it's still a cultural problem (beside the hard work that it would require).
  • aidos 13y ago
    Your first example is erroneous - perhaps a good example of why you shouldn't try to squeeze everything into a single line of code :) import sys src = open(sys.argv[1]) dest = open(sys.argv[2], 'w') dest.writelines(sorted(src))
• 6ren 13y ago
  Once you remove the redundancy, you'll see it is pure information!
• dbaupp 13y ago
  You can even just write lines = sorted(open(sys.argv[1])) since Python files act as iterators over lines.
• cldr 13y ago
  It's not really boilerplate in the classical sense, he's just talking about headers and lines that have only a brace on them. I think it's a fair statement. Plus, he could have reduced lines even further to get down to about 6, like vector<string> data; string line; for (ifstream ifile(argv[1]); getline(ifile, line);) data.push_back(line); sort(begin(data), end(data)); copy(begin(data), end(data), ostream_iterator<string>(ofstream(argv[2]), "\n")); And his `return 0` was superfluous so I removed it. Unfortunately we work with iterator pairs in C++; if we had ranges like D does, we could turn those last two into copy(sort(data), ...) but alas we cannot.
  • alpatters 13y ago
    You could use boost::range to make it even more succinct