cw VS shake

For things that are commonly and almost-ideally represented as text files, there’s a lot of Rust based alternatives are faster and have more features than the old unix/GNU tools: ripgrep, fd, cw, and you can find more in this list.

Nice, beats my old Rust wc through sheer brute force on my old 12c/24t server:

A lot of unix-y tools have been rewritten in rust, where the usefulness comes from it being faster or having more features. Examples: bat, cw, lsd, ripgrep, diskonaut, gping. Maybe you could find an interesting program to rewrite?

cw, an optionally-multithreaded bytecount-accelerated wc clone

Having written a Rust wc implementation a few years ago (https://github.com/Freaky/cw), I had a look at theirs.

It's pretty naive - a simple linewise read_until loop, a conditional to avoid word splitting and such if it's not needed, and for some reason it collects results into an array and prints when it's done rather than printing as it goes.

It doesn't support --files0-from like GNU wc, so isn't a drop-in replacement from that perspective. It also has the sadly common Rust trope of only supporting filenames that are valid UTF-8.

It doesn't seem overly slow considering its simplicity - usually trading blows with GNU and BSD wc. Perhaps the most glaring omission is the lack of a fast path for -c, which should reduce to a stat() call. Also unfortunate not to use the excellent bytecount crate to provide a very fast -l/m path.

The read_until loop also makes its memory use unpredictable compared with other wc's. If you run it on /dev/zero it will try to eat your computer.

Another interesting implementation is Shake: https://shakebuild.com/

It is technically a Haskell DSL, but supports Ninja files, time estimates and has tools for linting and profiling.

They explicitly refer to Shake build system and Build Systems a la Carte paper.

The one paper that gave me hope about build systems was Build systems à la carte: Theory and practice, by Andrey Mokhov, Neil Mitchell, and Simon Peyton Jones. Among other things, it describes the theoretical underpinnings of the Shake build system. To be honest I believe any build system that ignores the maths described in this paper can safely be ignored. (You may however ignore the paper itself if the maths checks out. See Daniel J. Bernstein's redo, which matches Shake very closely.)

Yeah, they don't have to be terrible. I haven't used it, but people in my circles tend to really like Shake, which uses a Haskell embedded DSL to describe builds.

You could try Shake. It's a sane build system written by a former co-worker of mine. https://shakebuild.com/

Shake does require compilation as it's essentially just a Haskell library providing a DSL and it works just fine, I guess in gradle's case it's a thing about Java-typical overengineering and complete blindness to resource usage. Shake's underlying engine can actually go head-to-head with ninja itself when building ninja files.

Did you look at shake: https://shakebuild.com/ ?

For reasons I don't want to get into, I am building my own GHC package without cabal. The documentation is a little sketchy, but I've succeeded in build and installing it in my own user database (I'm on linux x86_64, using GHC 8.6.5). I am using shake to do all of this, and I've been pretty pleased with how it works.