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

Unix as IDE (2012)

blog.sanctum.geek.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: Unix as IDE (2012)

#61

Post by calvinmorrison »

bitwize wrote: post #22
calvinmorrison wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expanding horizons = introducing longer pipelines of learning. At this point you'll need 10 years just to get the basics down much less be competent across the stack.

People routinely become immediately productive in Visual Studio Code. Contrast this with the potentially multi-decade journey of becoming proficient in something like vim or Emacs plus command line tools. It is possible to improve on the old ways, from a productivity and ease of learning standpoint as well as from a standpoint of what's possible.

Oh I don't mean around just IDEs, but really I have a ton of new guys on my team who can understand how apis work but not any futher down. Now, 90% of the time it doesn't matter but, anytime the problem is 1 layer lower it falls apart. There are so many layers when we should be reducing layers and simplifying.

Re: Unix as IDE (2012)

#62

Post by reissbaker »

tharne wrote: post #46
radiator wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about Macbooks, but if the company-provided Laptop runs Windows, tmux + editor is nowadays very easy using WSL2.

Works great on Macbooks. Some would say better since copy/paste on a mac, even to and from a terminal in tmux is much less of a mess than on WSL or Linux.

Native copy/paste integration is pretty out-of-the-box these days on WSL as well, FWIW.

Re: Unix as IDE (2012)

#63

Post by oblio »

chubot wrote: post #55
oblio wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that we'd ideally want to happen, but will probably never will unless a mad person does it, would be to have something that wraps around a POSIX shell, and extends it in a sort of non-compatible way. Let's call this new tool $NEWSH. Larry Wall basically tried to do this with Perl but I guess his vision was too lax for such a pursuit, Perl tried to be everything, all at once. What I mean by this new approach…

(author here) Yeah you just repeated what https://oilshell.org/ is You'd want to be able to go $NEWSH my-bash-script.sh and it should just work. $NEWSH my-newsh-script.nsh should also work, obviously. osh my-bash-script.sh # works, it's the most bash-compatible shell by a mile ysh my-new-script.ysh # works YSH looks like this - https://www.oilshell.org/release/latest/doc/ysh-tour.html (everything in this doc works, y…

I'm going to throw a curveball and say: can I run Oil on Windows/Cygwin? :-)

Also, how's the interactive mode? I don't want to just run scripts with it.

Re: Unix as IDE (2012)

#64

Post by paleface »

bitwize wrote: post #22
calvinmorrison wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expanding horizons = introducing longer pipelines of learning. At this point you'll need 10 years just to get the basics down much less be competent across the stack.

People routinely become immediately productive in Visual Studio Code. Contrast this with the potentially multi-decade journey of becoming proficient in something like vim or Emacs plus command line tools. It is possible to improve on the old ways, from a productivity and ease of learning standpoint as well as from a standpoint of what's possible.

Your argument might hold water, if the standard for productivity was simply churning out code. The Linux/Unix world, already has tools, like nano, for such users.

The software world, might be better served, however, if programmers slowed down, and engaged their brains, before bashing keys. I’ve solved most of the difficult problems, in my programming life, in the bath - where I can allow my mind to wander, and come up with the best solution.

Re: Unix as IDE (2012)

#65

Post by yung_steezy »

reissbaker wrote: post #15

IMO tmux + a scriptable terminal editor (Vim, Neovim, Emacs, etc) turns Unix into a very nice IDE — but it's pretty dependent on becoming deeply familiar with those two tools: a multiplexer and an editor. I wouldn't say Unix is an IDE, really; but you can build a very nice IDE for yourself using Unix tools, as long as you have a sufficiently configurable terminal multiplexer and a sufficiently configurable terminal e…

tmux defaults don't play nicely with the Apple Terminal. Resizing split panes for example collides with switching workspaces in macOS finder.

Re: Unix as IDE (2012)

#66

Post by deafpolygon »

tharne wrote: post #46
radiator wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about Macbooks, but if the company-provided Laptop runs Windows, tmux + editor is nowadays very easy using WSL2.

Works great on Macbooks. Some would say better since copy/paste on a mac, even to and from a terminal in tmux is much less of a mess than on WSL or Linux.

Windows Terminal has support for copy and paste that is integrated into the OS natively. CTRL+C/V works perfectly.

Re: Unix as IDE (2012)

#67

Post by chubot »

oblio wrote: post #63
chubot wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(author here) Yeah you just repeated what https://oilshell.org/ is You'd want to be able to go $NEWSH my-bash-script.sh and it should just work. $NEWSH my-newsh-script.nsh should also work, obviously. osh my-bash-script.sh # works, it's the most bash-compatible shell by a mile ysh my-new-script.ysh # works YSH looks like this - https://www.oilshell.org/release/latest/doc/ysh-tour.html (everything in this doc works, y…

I'm going to throw a curveball and say: can I run Oil on Windows/Cygwin? :-) Also, how's the interactive mode? I don't want to just run scripts with it.

It runs on WSL, not sure about Cygwin

Interactive shell screencasts was the last blog post: https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2023/12/screencasts.html

Real Unix users download and build tarballs, they don't wait for the packaging gods to bless them with software :-P

Re: Unix as IDE (2012)

#68

Post by oblio »

chubot wrote: post #67
oblio wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to throw a curveball and say: can I run Oil on Windows/Cygwin? :-) Also, how's the interactive mode? I don't want to just run scripts with it.

It runs on WSL, not sure about Cygwin Interactive shell screencasts was the last blog post: https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2023/12/screencasts.html Real Unix users download and build tarballs, they don't wait for the packaging gods to bless them with software :-P

Real Unix users aren't computer users then cause computer users are lazy :-p

I'll see if it doesn't take a huge chunk of time to get it going in Cygwin.

Re: Unix as IDE (2012)

#69

Post by oblio »

chubot wrote: post #67
oblio wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to throw a curveball and say: can I run Oil on Windows/Cygwin? :-) Also, how's the interactive mode? I don't want to just run scripts with it.

It runs on WSL, not sure about Cygwin Interactive shell screencasts was the last blog post: https://www.oilshell.org/blog/2023/12/screencasts.html Real Unix users download and build tarballs, they don't wait for the packaging gods to bless them with software :-P

To clarify, I love the great news and I love the idea of Oil, I hope it takes off. Linux badly needs it.

Re: Unix as IDE (2012)

#70

Post by tharne »

reissbaker wrote: post #62
tharne wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Works great on Macbooks. Some would say better since copy/paste on a mac, even to and from a terminal in tmux is much less of a mess than on WSL or Linux.

Native copy/paste integration is pretty out-of-the-box these days on WSL as well, FWIW.

True. It's kind of funny that Microsoft did a better job implementing linux than they did implementing windows.
Post reply on HN