Ruby: A great language for shell scripts

Post by ndand » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 12:34 PM UTC

cyclotron3k wrote: post #188

lr4444lr wrote: post #43

Not denying Ruby is good, but other than process forking, why should I prefer it to Python?

Personally, I find Ruby's syntax more natural, (I'm going to be heavily biased though, having written Ruby for 10+ years). But for example, let's say I wanted to make a hash (dict) of files, keyed by their size (for some unknown reason), in Ruby it would look like: Pathname.glob('*').filter { |f| f.file? }.each_with_object({}) { |f, h| h[f.size] = f } Whereas the equivalent Python would be: result = {} for file_path…

  ' '.join(map(str.capitalize, string.split(' ')))

Post by medstrom » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 12:47 PM UTC

Neywiny wrote: post #152

anothername12 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the built in one is deprecated though right?

Are there distributions where this doesn't happen? I feel like I'm often installing or compiling new versions of packages and languages because they're outdated on Ubuntu

Post by shlant » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 12:53 PM UTC

NullInvictus wrote: post #68

codesnik wrote: post #9

I sometimes wonder why we don't see ruby used for shell stuff more often. It inherited most of the good stuff for shell scripting from Perl, and Perl took a lot of it's syntax from sh and sed and awk, so almost anything you can do in shell script you can do in ruby, but with an option of making it gradually less terse and more readable, while having sane variables and data handling from the start. Also ruby is great…

I think the quality of a language for shell scripting is often secondary. What’s of greater significance is where it is at. I.e., does it have it already installed? The answer with Linux and Bash is almost always “yes”. Not so with ruby. The moment you start asking the user to install things, you’ve opened up the possibility for writing a program rather than a shell script. The lifecycle of a piece of software is alm…

Post by pseudalopex » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 12:57 PM UTC

cyclotron3k wrote: post #188

lr4444lr wrote: post #43

Not denying Ruby is good, but other than process forking, why should I prefer it to Python?

Personally, I find Ruby's syntax more natural, (I'm going to be heavily biased though, having written Ruby for 10+ years). But for example, let's say I wanted to make a hash (dict) of files, keyed by their size (for some unknown reason), in Ruby it would look like: Pathname.glob('*').filter { |f| f.file? }.each_with_object({}) { |f, h| h[f.size] = f } Whereas the equivalent Python would be: result = {} for file_path…

    result = {os.path.getsize(f): f for f in os.listdir() if os.path.isfile(f)}

    result = ' '.join(word.capitalize() for word in string.split(' '))
    result = ' '.join(map(str.capitalize, string.split(' ')))
    result = string.title()

Post by sgarland » Sun, Jun 23, 2024, 1:15 PM UTC

cyclotron3k wrote: post #188

lr4444lr wrote: post #43

Not denying Ruby is good, but other than process forking, why should I prefer it to Python?

Personally, I find Ruby's syntax more natural, (I'm going to be heavily biased though, having written Ruby for 10+ years). But for example, let's say I wanted to make a hash (dict) of files, keyed by their size (for some unknown reason), in Ruby it would look like: Pathname.glob('*').filter { |f| f.file? }.each_with_object({}) { |f, h| h[f.size] = f } Whereas the equivalent Python would be: result = {} for file_path…

  from string import capwords 
  result = capwords(string)

  result = { f:os.path.getsize(f) for f in glob.glob(“*”) if os.path.isfile(f) }