111–120 of 179 posts
This is brilliant. (I've forwarded it to novices and pros alike, and everyone else's response has been much the same.) If you were to open up donations to support development, I would HAPPILY contribute.
I work full-time right now, so money isn't really an issue. I'll gladly accept commits though! ;)
I totally love this, it's already incredibly helpful! It's super-functional, and frankly it's very, very nice looking. To Mr. Idan Kamara, the creator of this, I have nothing but the highest praise! Now, I hate to get side-tracked, but for much larger commands, like this one: ps x -o "%r %c " | grep "someScript.sh" | awk -F' ' '{print $1}' | xargs -I % /bin/kill -TERM -- -% that has a lot of parts, it can be hard to…
I totally love this, it's already incredibly helpful! It's super-functional, and frankly it's very, very nice looking. To Mr. Idan Kamara, the creator of this, I have nothing but the highest praise! Now, I hate to get side-tracked, but for much larger commands, like this one: ps x -o "%r %c " | grep "someScript.sh" | awk -F' ' '{print $1}' | xargs -I % /bin/kill -TERM -- -% that has a lot of parts, it can be hard to…
Hi! Happy to see explainshell on HN again, thanks for all the compliments! I agree about large commands being hard to follow. I tried solving this by adding the ability to navigate between commands. Right now clicking the command takes you to a page that displays that command options, but I can change it to the equivalent of navigating to it with the arrows at the top. There might be something better to do UI wise, t…
It's a nice toy, but seems to break down with more interesting stuff. For instance: for FILE in `ls`; do echo $FILE ; done http://explainshell.com/explain?cmd=+for+FILE+in+%60ls%60%3B... That's a simpler equivalent of something I cooked up which probably didn't belong in a single line of shell anyhow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe I'm missing some point, but I don't think you need the lines if it goes top to bottom. Or, maybe you'd only need one line to show up if you highlighted a snippet/description: To point back to what you're hovering over.
I think it'll be hard to match portions of the command to their boxes if there were no lines at all. How would you know that the `v` in `tar xzvf foo` matches the 4th box? Having a single line when you hover could help, but sounds confusing for new users that are unaware of this feature.
tar description1
x description2
z description3
...Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you have a point (plus, those stars, they burn the eyes). But, your detractors will say yours is two processes and theirs is one. Efficiency!
The kernel could start 100 processes in the time it takes me to type those extra four characters. We won't run out of processes. I did a test, finding .txt files in /usr/share, it took about .25 seconds longer with du and grep, which seems like less than it takes to type 4 more characters.