Our great sponsors
just | nushell | |
---|---|---|
163 | 212 | |
17,053 | 29,864 | |
- | 2.5% | |
9.1 | 9.9 | |
2 days ago | 6 days ago | |
Rust | Rust | |
Creative Commons Zero v1.0 Universal | MIT License |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
just
-
Ask HN: What software sparks joy when using?
just - https://github.com/casey/just
-
GitHub switched to Docker Compose v2, action needed
Welp there is absolute chaos in that thread -- guess it's not an April Fools joke.
I wonder if relying on CI for anything other than provisioning machines is a mistake -- maybe we should have never moved from doing things from local scripts written in $LANGUAGE.
That said, I'm probably biased since I'm a massive fan of things like `make` and more appropriately for the current age, `just`[0]
[0]: https://github.com/casey/just
-
Which command did you run 1731 days ago?
> When a command has some cognitive requirements I create a script with some ${1:-default} values and I store them all in $PATH enabled local/bin
I would consider using just for this:
https://github.com/casey/just
-
Using Make – writing less Makefile
Your coworker's experience is more principled: Make is a mediocre tool for executing commands. It wasn't ever designed for that. Although it is pretty common to see what you are mentioning in projects because it doesn't require installing a dependency.
For a repo where an easy to install (single binary) dependency is a non-issue, consider using just. [1] You get `just -l` where you can see all the command available, the ability to use different languages, and overall simpler command writing.
[1] https://github.com/casey/just
-
Show HN: Just.sh – compiler that turns Justfiles into portable shell scripts
This is fantastic, but I'd say that this solution is somewhat in response to this open issue from 2019:
https://github.com/casey/just/issues/429
I really wish just was included as a package in distributions.
-
Sharing Saturday #496
So far, I didn't work on new features at all but on stabilizing the ground for further development: 1. CMake lists and modules were rewritten a lot, now managing builds and their configurations is much lesser pain. 2. Brought in Justfile for regular tasks, and it's great, no less. 3. Linters, formatters, analyzers for almost all the code (except for Janet for now, as because of it being a niche and young technology, it didn't get enough attention yet). 4. ECS stub. Now runtime class doesn't look like a god object. 5. Started writing unit tests which didn't happen with my personal projects before and maybe indicates how serious am I about this one :D 6. Some of previously hardcoded data has been moved to INI files. Now, if I release the game in 10 years, and in 10 more years some eccentric person decides to make a variant of it, it will be slightly simpler.
-
What’s with DevOps engineers using `make` of all things?
i've grown to like this for my personal projects. https://github.com/casey/just
-
Show HN: Jeeves – A Pythonic Alternative to GNU Make
Reminds me of `just`. Which I love.
https://github.com/casey/just
-
Dev Containers: Open, Develop, Repeat...
In my example above, I installed the developer tool "Just" as a Dev Container feature. I could also install it by adding the install script to my Dockerfile. However, I would have to build my own Dockerfile and would have to maintain this piece of code myself. This Dev Container Feature works on different architectures and base images, which makes them convenient to use.
-
Show HN: Togomak – declarative pipeline orchestrator based on HCL and Terraform
One primary design goal togomak had from the beginning was concurrency. All tasks run concurrently, unless a `depends_on` argument is mentioned. `just` didn't support that when I was initially building togomak, but there is a feature coming in soon which I am looking forward to: https://github.com/casey/just/pull/1562 .
While I was building togomak, I read through Dagger [1], Earthly [2], Concourse CI [3], Jest and Make along with the stuff I was already working with - Jenkins, GitHub actions and GitLab CI. Dagger [1] is really great, I like its design - it supports writing pipelines in Python, Typescript, Go and a few more languages. togomak tries to abstract away a lot of it. Such as dependency management (in the case of python, the requirement of a python interpreter, and its package managers, etc). togomak is just a single statically-linked binary.
[1]: https://dagger.io/
nushell
-
NuShell - Ceci n'est pas une |
These are just three small examples of what this shell written in Rust allows. The features are many and many more, but I'll leave it up to you to discover and enjoy them; I'm currently playing around with it and it's giving me a lot of satisfaction and immediacy, now it has a fixed place among the tools I use when working! The project is Open Source, so if you want to contribute, I invite you, as always, to do so, I leave you the link to the repo here!
- Xonsh: Python-powered, cross-platform, Unix-gazing shell
-
Fish shell 3.7.0: last release branch before the full Rust rewrite
Any thoughts on fish as compared to nushell [0]? It's similar to PowerShell in its philosophy and is also written in Rust.
[0] https://github.com/nushell/nushell
-
jc: Converts the output of popular command-line tools to JSON
> In PowerShell, structured output is the default and it seems to work very well.
PowerShell goes a step beyond JSON, by supporting actual mutable objects. So instead of just passing through structured data, you effectively pass around opaque objects that allow you to go back to earlier pipeline stages, and invoke methods, if I understand correctly: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsof....
I'm rather fond of wrappers like jc and libxo, and experimental shells like https://www.nushell.sh/. These still focus on passing data, not objects with executable methods. On some level, I find this comfortable: Structured data still feels pretty Unix-like, if that makes sense? If I want actual objects, then it's probably time to fire up Python or Ruby.
Knowing when to switch from a shell script to a full-fledged programming language is important, even if your shell is basically awesome and has good programming features.
-
Ripgrep is faster than {grep, ag, Git grep, ucg, pt, sift}
Maybe if the "popular" shells, but http://www.nushell.sh/ is looking better and better
- "<ESC>[31M"? ANSI Terminal security in 2023 and finding 10 CVEs
-
jq 1.7 Released
Yeah agreed, especially now that PowerShell is available cross-platform.
Nushell[1] also seems like a promising alternative, but I haven’t had a chance to play with it yet.
[1]: https://www.nushell.sh/
-
The Case for Nushell
I also discovered an existing discussion[1] related to this topic which includes a link[2] to a "helper to call nushell nuon/json/yaml commands from bash/fish/zsh" and a comment[3] that the current nushell dev focus is "on getting the experience inside nushell right and [we] probably won't be able to dedicate design time to get the interface of native Nu commands with an outside POSIX shell right and stable.".
[0] https://gitlab.com/RancidBacon/notes_public/-/blob/main/note...
[1] "Expose some commands to external world #6554": https://github.com/nushell/nushell/issues/6554
[2] https://github.com/cruel-intentions/devshell-files/blob/mast...
[3] https://github.com/nushell/nushell/issues/6554#issuecomment-...
I appreciate what projects like Nushell and Murex are trying to address, but having a saner scripting language and passing structured data in pipelines is not worth the drawbacks for me.
For one, Bash scripting is not so bad if you set some sane defaults and use ShellCheck. Sure, it has its quirks, but all languages do. Even so, the same golden rule applies: use a "real" programming language if your problem exceeds a certain level of complexity. This is relative and will depend on your discomfort threshold, but using the right tool for the job is always a good practice. No matter how good the shell language is, I would hesitate to write and maintain a complex project in it.
And for general QoL improvements with interactive use, Zsh is a fine shell, while still being POSIX compatible.
[1]: https://github.com/nushell/nushell/blob/main/crates/nu-comma...
[2]: https://github.com/nushell/nushell/issues/5027
[3]: https://github.com/nushell/nushell/issues/9310
-
Simple PowerShell things allowing you to dig a bit deeper than usual
I found nushell (https://www.nushell.sh) to be an impressive replacement "bash" for Windows
In terms of philosophy, think "Powershell but actually intuitive" : Every data is structured but command names are what you expect them to be. I usually don't even need to look at the documentation.
I liked it so much that I also replaced my shell on Linux with it, so I have the same terminal experience across all OSes
What are some alternatives?
Task - A task runner / simpler Make alternative written in Go
fish-shell - The user-friendly command line shell.
cargo-make - Rust task runner and build tool.
elvish - Powerful scripting language & Versatile interactive shell
cargo-xtask
starship - ☄🌌️ The minimal, blazing-fast, and infinitely customizable prompt for any shell!
Taskfile - Repository for the Taskfile template.
PowerShell - PowerShell for every system!
CodeLLDB - A native debugger extension for VSCode based on LLDB
alacritty - A cross-platform, OpenGL terminal emulator.
cargo-release - Cargo subcommand `release`: everything about releasing a rust crate.
xonsh - :shell: Python-powered, cross-platform, Unix-gazing shell.