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

The Bun Shell

bun.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 239 posts

Re: The Bun Shell

#221

Post by leptons »

dumbo-octopus wrote: post #220
leptons wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, if you set your own goalposts for the argument, you get to win any way you want. >" I'd argue the opposite: more computers have an end-user accessible JavaScript engine (a browser) than an end-user accessible shell. " So let's use a specific goalpost and frame "a computer" as a desktop personal computer. Today, there are no mainstream personal computers sold that don't come with both a user accessible shell and…

Perhaps I'd better understand what exactly your argument is if you could explain to me why devices which by your own admission "have no shell, do not run javascript, and have no browser" would have any relevance whatsoever in a discussion of whether more devices have a user-accessible shell or user-accessible browser. To me it seems they are just about as irrelevant to the topic at hand as anything could possibly be,…

You have your definition of "computer", and I have mine. Any "computer" can be made to have a shell, or run javascript. That was the only point of my comment, and people seemed to agree. YMMV.

Re: The Bun Shell

#222

Post by diroussel »

simonjgreen wrote: post #118

Minor tangent, but plucked from that article, why is ‘rimraf’ downloaded 60m+ time a week?! Why is that a thing that need a library? (Asking as a systems guy, not a programmer)

Yes 60m downloads is a lot of downloads. But it’s not 60m developers manually clicking the download link every week. Not is it 60m times that “npm install rimraf” has been called. What is happening is that many projects, some big some just hello world tutorials, have listed rimraf in the package.json file for that project. Then when “npm install” is run, all the packages get downloaded. And what is more, many people build their software in CI builds, like travisci, circleci, or GitHub actions. The build scripts will also then downloaded everything listed in package.json. And if you do multiple builds a day, then that’s multiple downloads each day.

Is it very inefficient? Yes it is. And npmjs.com will block your IP if you do too many downloads in on day.

Actually is says 86m a week here: https://www.npmjs.com/package/rimraf

Re: The Bun Shell

#223

Post by aragilar »

pasc1878 wrote: post #166
aragilar wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, MacOS has zsh (which has far more features than most other POSIX shells), and even old bash has POSIX compatibility. Your TV/IoT device likely has busybox, as does your router. You install git on windows, it's got a (POSIX) shell. The number of places that lack a shell is tiny. Node/deno/bun are rare, and browsers whilst being more common, still require the device to have some kind of GUI.

Read my comment on macOS please - it explicitly is about dealing with Linux people who write scripts assuming new versions of Bash. Now if Linux used zsh then your comment is valid. Bash shell scripts do not necessarily run in zsh. Most Windows users do not install git. iPhones don't have a shell.

Assuming `/bin/sh` is bash is going to break on a whole bunch of systems (not just MacOS), and zsh implements POSIX. Also, this is for bun, so I'd be concerned that you're missing git on Windows.

Re: The Bun Shell

#225

Post by dumbo-octopus »

leptons wrote: post #221
dumbo-octopus wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I'd better understand what exactly your argument is if you could explain to me why devices which by your own admission "have no shell, do not run javascript, and have no browser" would have any relevance whatsoever in a discussion of whether more devices have a user-accessible shell or user-accessible browser. To me it seems they are just about as irrelevant to the topic at hand as anything could possibly be,…

You have your definition of "computer", and I have mine. Any "computer" can be made to have a shell, or run javascript. That was the only point of my comment, and people seemed to agree. YMMV.

There is no material difference in our definitions of computers. I am talking about what devices "have", in the indicative present tense. You contest my definition of a computer for some reason, then go on to make arguments about "can be made to have", as if that's somehow relevant? It boggles the mind.

Here's my argument in simpler terms that you may understand:

Across all objects in the known universe that have an end-user accessible either shell or javascript language interpreter, I claim there are more objects that have the javascript interpreter.

Do you now see how your claims about embedded IOT devices with no shells or js engines being "computers" that could maybe someday run various programs is completely off topic?

Re: The Bun Shell

#226

Post by leptons »

dumbo-octopus wrote: post #225
leptons wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have your definition of "computer", and I have mine. Any "computer" can be made to have a shell, or run javascript. That was the only point of my comment, and people seemed to agree. YMMV.

There is no material difference in our definitions of computers. I am talking about what devices "have", in the indicative present tense. You contest my definition of a computer for some reason, then go on to make arguments about "can be made to have", as if that's somehow relevant? It boggles the mind. Here's my argument in simpler terms that you may understand: Across all objects in the known universe that have an…

>There is no material difference in our definitions of computers.

Yes, there really is.

>Here's my argument in simpler terms that you may understand:

No need to be condescending about a disagreement in semantics.

>Across all objects in the known universe that have an end-user accessible either shell or javascript language interpreter, I claim there are more objects that have the javascript interpreter.

You'd be wrong. And you're being purposely vague. You haven't proven anything towards your assumption.

But lines need to be drawn. Is a phone a computer? If a phone is a computer, then so must an IoT device be a computer, or a managed network switch, and then your argument is falling apart.

I'm setting some goalposts since you don't seem to understand that goalposts are required to win a pointless internet argument.

I'm saying that if you include phones then you must also include other types of devices like routers and networking equipment and many other "objects in the known universe", and then there are many more devices that have a shell that do not have a web browser, and then you lose.

So set some definite goalposts if you want to continue this pointless conversation.

Re: The Bun Shell

#227

Post by dumbo-octopus »

leptons wrote: post #226
dumbo-octopus wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no material difference in our definitions of computers. I am talking about what devices "have", in the indicative present tense. You contest my definition of a computer for some reason, then go on to make arguments about "can be made to have", as if that's somehow relevant? It boggles the mind. Here's my argument in simpler terms that you may understand: Across all objects in the known universe that have an…

>There is no material difference in our definitions of computers. Yes, there really is. >Here's my argument in simpler terms that you may understand: No need to be condescending about a disagreement in semantics. >Across all objects in the known universe that have an end-user accessible either shell or javascript language interpreter, I claim there are more objects that have the javascript interpreter. You'd be wrong…

> You haven't proven anything towards your assumption.

I gave the iOS example. 2 Billion devices with a browser but no shell. You have given no examples, other than devices which by your own admission have no shell or js engine, and are accordingly out of scope for this argument.

> If a phone is a computer, then so must an IoT device be a computer, or a managed network switch, and then your argument is falling apart.

I don't care what you include in the universe of "computers", all I care about is whether a given thing has an end-user accessible shell or js engine. If you think my argument is falling apart due to the existence of things which have absolutely no relation to it, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm trying, but I really don't think I can be any more clear with you. Let's revisit my initial request of you:

> Can you give an example of a device that has an end-user accessible shell, but not an end-user accessible browser?

To date all you've mentioned are devices which have no shell or js engine. I don't understand how you think you're being relevant.

And the goal posts have been immobile and obvious to everyone but you from the very beginning: count the devices where the user can access a browser, count the devices where the user can access a shell. Which number is bigger?

Re: The Bun Shell

#228

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #51

"JavaScript is the world's most popular scripting language." Perhaps, based on usage. But shell must be the world's most ubiquitous scripting language. Not every computer has a Javascript engine but most have a shell. Many, many computers have no browser, let alone a GUI. Some small form factor computers might have embedded Javascript engine but that's a minority. No browser on the router.

"Shell isn't a language."

Github lists shell as a programming language.

     tnftp -4o"|sed -n '/^Shell:/,/language_id:/p'" \
     https://raw.githubusercontent.com/github-linguist/linguist/master/lib/linguist/languages.yml

     HOST=raw.githubusercontent.com;PATH=/github-linguist/linguist/master/lib/linguist/languages.yml
     (printf 'GET '$PATH' HTTP/1.0\r\n';printf 'Host: '$HOST'\r\n\r\n') \
     |busybox ssl_client 185.199.108.133 \
     |sed -n '/^Shell:/,/language_id:/p'

Re: The Bun Shell

#229

Post by leptons »

dumbo-octopus wrote: post #227
leptons wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There is no material difference in our definitions of computers. Yes, there really is. >Here's my argument in simpler terms that you may understand: No need to be condescending about a disagreement in semantics. >Across all objects in the known universe that have an end-user accessible either shell or javascript language interpreter, I claim there are more objects that have the javascript interpreter. You'd be wrong…

> You haven't proven anything towards your assumption. I gave the iOS example. 2 Billion devices with a browser but no shell. You have given no examples, other than devices which by your own admission have no shell or js engine, and are accordingly out of scope for this argument. > If a phone is a computer, then so must an IoT device be a computer, or a managed network switch, and then your argument is falling apart.…

iphones can't be used to prove anything except that you're a fanboy.

I've given plenty of examples. But you are unwilling to define

>I don't care what you include in the universe of "computers", all I care about is winning pointless internet arguments.

FTFY

You ran to the 'iPhone' example as if the reality distortion field would block me, but it doesn't prove anything. There are billions of servers, network switches, supercomputer installations that are all definitely computers with a shell that don't have a web browser in any way shape or form. Every computer in the entire "cloud" has a shell but not necessarily a web browser, and usually don't have one. Every container running on those servers is essentially a server with a shell. It's a deep rabbit hole if you want to go down. Practically every house with an iphone has at least 1 network router if not more, most have a shell but no browser. The list goes on and on and on. But sure, die on that iPhone hill like so many others before you.

Post reply on HN