Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nushell.sh ls | where size > 10mb | sort-by modified

nushell.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 215 posts

Re: Nushell.sh ls | where size > 10mb | sort-by modified

#191

Post by IshKebab »

HervalFreire wrote: post #101
jedisct1 wrote: post #52

I tried to use it as my main shell for a couple days, found it fun and potentially useful, played with its unique features... and eventually uninstalled it and went back to zsh. For 99.99% of what I use a shell for, Nushell doesn't do anything that I can't do with a regular shell. Maybe just because I'm used to shells/sed/awk/etc. For the few cases where Nushell could be useful, I can usually do the same thing with V…

What if someone starts from a clean slate. Which shell is better? That is the question. Old habits hold us back from progress in usability. Eventually if one system is better it should completely replace the old system. But only if it's better. What one power user deems as "useful" according to his own usage patterns shouldn't be a metric for measurement. I haven't played with nushell yet, but it actually seems more…

From a clean state almost everything is better than Bash. I don't think many people seriously say that Bash is good. We use it because of the insane network effects that come from it being preinstalled almost everywhere (except Windows).

The question is not "is nushell better than Bash" - it obviously is. The question is "is nushell better enough that you are willing to install it on every system you use, deal with naysaying colleagues and idiots that have been brainwashed into thinking Bash is great, learn a new tool, deal with all the incompatibilities with software that assumes everyone uses Bash, etc. etc."

As much as I hate Bash I would say it isn't that good. At least currently. If you're willing to install a new tool to run your scripts then there are better options, e.g. Deno. If it catches on and gets installed by default in more places in future (hopefully!) then that might change.

Basically I would say for interactive use Bash is not great but fine. For scripting use you shouldn't use Bash anyway.

Re: Nushell.sh ls | where size > 10mb | sort-by modified

#192

Post by ParetoOptimal »

zamadatix wrote: post #148
bmelton wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the same reason I eventually learned and stuck with Vi(m). Implementing a project on a massive array of SPARC Solaris boxes and every "easy' tool I'd learned just... wasn't there. I had kind of learned Vi at that point, but wasn't remotely proficient in it, and had only gotten as far as I had due to a bunch of cool plugins I'd installed that definitely weren't available.

That last part is often forgotten. I usually stick with defaults (or as close as I reasonably can) not because they are functionally better but because for most things I don't have the return on learning and regularly using two instances of ${tool} isn't worth the extra time. Sometimes it's a pain but it seems to pay off.

I used to do this, but then found emacs/tramp and that has worked better ever since.

Re: Nushell.sh ls | where size > 10mb | sort-by modified

#194

Post by ParetoOptimal »

ilyt wrote: post #127
HervalFreire wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if someone starts from a clean slate. Which shell is better? That is the question. Old habits hold us back from progress in usability. Eventually if one system is better it should completely replace the old system. But only if it's better. What one power user deems as "useful" according to his own usage patterns shouldn't be a metric for measurement. I haven't played with nushell yet, but it actually seems more…

> What if someone starts from a clean slate. Which shell is better? Then they learn the better and end up having to learn bash anyway coz that's what runs on remote machines. There is also not that much to be gained. Common easy tasks might be easier to learn but just few percent faster in the end. Harder ones are faster by one-off script in "real" programming language most of the time. Harder repeatable one should n…

> Then they learn the better and end up having to learn bash anyway coz that's what runs on remote machines.

unless you are the person to push for it to be installed on the remote machine.

Re: Nushell.sh ls | where size > 10mb | sort-by modified

#195

Post by xx_ns »

jedisct1 wrote: post #52

I tried to use it as my main shell for a couple days, found it fun and potentially useful, played with its unique features... and eventually uninstalled it and went back to zsh. For 99.99% of what I use a shell for, Nushell doesn't do anything that I can't do with a regular shell. Maybe just because I'm used to shells/sed/awk/etc. For the few cases where Nushell could be useful, I can usually do the same thing with V…

This was precisely my experience as well. It was magnified by the burden of having to rewrite various zsh scripts and parts of my config that I've cultivated over a decade. I thought Nushell was _neat_, but not neat or useful enough spend time migrating my stuff.

Re: Nushell.sh ls | where size > 10mb | sort-by modified

#196

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

a1369209993 wrote: post #164
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's bizarre and perverse! Surely someone has brought it up as a bug before that stdin is read-write! Is there some Posix standard preventing the standard shells from opening stdin as read-only???

stdin is readonly. `<a.txt ls /proc/self/fd/0` generally gives 'lr-x------' for the permissions. The problem is that having a open file descriptor to a file lets a program get and/or act-as-if-it-had a path to the file; /proc/self/fd/ is just the easiest way to do that.

Ah, I believe I see what's happening there.

So, hiding the pathname from an untrusted tool via an unnamed pipe is a Posix security measure. Still bizarre!

Who was the guy who awarded UUOC prizes? Wasn't he a real dyed-in-the-wool security wonk?

Re: Nushell.sh ls | where size > 10mb | sort-by modified

#197

Post by hckr1292 »

jedisct1 wrote: post #52

I tried to use it as my main shell for a couple days, found it fun and potentially useful, played with its unique features... and eventually uninstalled it and went back to zsh. For 99.99% of what I use a shell for, Nushell doesn't do anything that I can't do with a regular shell. Maybe just because I'm used to shells/sed/awk/etc. For the few cases where Nushell could be useful, I can usually do the same thing with V…

I've never seen nushell as a daily driver -- more as a data exploration tool. Have a random export you want to go splunking in? `nu` from your current zsh session and go wild. When you're done, ^D back to your main zsh session, job done. Whereas `jq` is only useful for json, and `xsv` is only useful for CSVs, `nu` offers uniform syntax for exploring many different formats and producing structured data out at the end as well. Neat!

Re: Nushell.sh ls | where size > 10mb | sort-by modified

#199

Post by vips7L »

scns wrote: post #188
vips7L wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Java, Scala, Kotlin, C#, D, Go, and TypeScript to name a few.

Of those only D and Go build self contained binaries (yes i know about Graal/Kotlin Native/.Net AOT). No snark intended.

This is moving the goal post a bit, since the person I replied to was considering JavaScript, but I don’t really think this distinction matters. You get most programs from a package manager.

I am curious though why you don’t count graal or .net aot? They are valid options to produce an aot binary and C# has been able to produce a self contained non-aot runtime for a long a time.

Re: Nushell.sh ls | where size > 10mb | sort-by modified

#200

Post by MaxMatti »

sp33der89 wrote: post #118
HervalFreire wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if someone starts from a clean slate. Which shell is better? That is the question. Old habits hold us back from progress in usability. Eventually if one system is better it should completely replace the old system. But only if it's better. What one power user deems as "useful" according to his own usage patterns shouldn't be a metric for measurement. I haven't played with nushell yet, but it actually seems more…

Fish is that shell for me. I tried nushell and zsh. zsh required a bunch of setup and nushell was too young. Whereas fish has really great defaults and enough of support to just go and have fun.

Have you tried oh-my-zsh? It's what got me to install zsh on all my servers, even at work. Just run their setup script, let it change your default shell and set your preferred theme in the config.
Post reply on HN