process-compose VS mise

The IMO superior https://github.com/F1bonacc1/process-compose project has this built in, while allowing to manage regular programs that don't require containers.

See:

Devbox can also run services too. Both products use an awesome process runner called process-compose (https://github.com/f1bonacc1/process-compose/) which is worth checking out (it's even built with nix!)

I've been using https://github.com/F1bonacc1/process-compose with great success.

It's a userspace process compositor that works across all relevant platforms, supporting daemon processes and k8s style readiness/health checks.

In combination with nix flakes, it quickly reduced my projects docker-compose usage for easy-to-configure services.

This gave huge performance benefits for the M1 Mac folks on my team especially for CPU intensive processes thanks to native binaries.

For maximal ease of use, the remaining docker-compose containers are started/stopped as a process-compose task.

In order to run a simple client-server (1 client, 5 servers) application, I wrote a simple docker-compose file and everything worked great. My dev flow would be the usual: make some changes/optimizations, spin everything up, run a bunch of tests, and go back to step one. At some point, I felt that for my dev environment and language (Linux, golang). docker-compose is great for spinning everything up, but for rapid development, it actually slows me down. I didn't really need containers. I tried to find an alternative solution. Something like a docker-compose, but for native processes, but most of the tools that I found were CI/CD oriented. I like K9S (who doesn't?) and I like docker-compose (some don't), so I built a Frankenstein Monster of them both :) https://github.com/F1bonacc1/process-compose I am not sure if you'll find it as useful as I do, but in any case, any feedback is more than welcome.

Where are you getting "mise uses asdf" from? mise is simply compatible with all asdf plugins. Not the same thing.

It's even said almost at the top of the README.md in the "30 seconds demo" section:

"The following shows using mise to install different versions of node. Note that calling which node gives us a real path to node, not a shim."

https://github.com/jdx/mise?tab=readme-ov-file#30-second-dem...

So yes, mise does not use shims. It only manipulates $PATH. I did benchmarks a while ago and that definitely and consistently has shaved some milliseconds off of the startup times of my tools.

mise borrows the plugins from asdf, which also makes it non-cross platform. Interesting discussion on this topic on their GitHub: https://github.com/jdx/mise/discussions/66

Solutions considered include adopting the vfox plugin system or transpiling all asdf plugins to ShellJs.

Now I know that vfox exists.

Why not just use a tool like asdf (https://asdf-vm.com/) or mise (https://mise.jdx.dev/)?

These tools have the advantage of not being multi-taskers and can manage version for all your tools. You wouldn’t need pyenv and npm and rvm and…

We’ve even started committing the .mise.toml files for projects to our repos. That way, since we work on multiple projects that may need multiple versions of the same tool, it’s handled and documented.

direnv + mise does exactly that. When I cd to various directories I get different env vars, it's pretty neat. Setting aliases would just be a case of adding them.

https://github.com/jdx/mise/discussions/1525 for an example of how I use direnv with mise.

https://mise.jdx.dev/direnv.html

https://mise.jdx.dev/templates.html

Installed bun js runtime (I used mise, btw)

Not nix based, but I really like https://github.com/jdx/mise too to manage dev tools.

It’s a modern version of https://github.com/asdf-vm/asdf written in Rust.

The purpose of a version manager is to help you navigate or install any tools for development easily. Version Manager can be one tool for each dependency (e.g. NVM, g) or One tool for all dependencies (e.g. asdf, mise).