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

Start all of your commands with a comma (2009)

rhodesmill.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 177 posts

Re: Start all of your commands with a comma (2009)

#81

Post by thefifthsetpin »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #15

I'm curious how folks manage their important local configurations, e.g. - is your ~/bin directory a git repo? - if you git to manage your dot files, do you use hard links or soft links?

My ~/bin directory is not directly version controlled. It primarily consists of symlinks, often stripping file extensions from shell scripts (e.g., ~/bin/foobar links to ~/src/foobar.sh) I have just enough python scripts and go binaries to make me think it's worth separating src and bin.

~/src is a git repo. One script evolved into its own project and became a submodule within ~/src.

For configuration files like ~/.foobar_rc and directories such as ~/.vim/, they again are not directly version controlled but are symlinked into ~/etc which is. I don't see any reason that ~/.foobar_rc couldn't be a hardlink, but it's not in my setup.

I used to maintain a single repository at ~ that included ~/src and ~/etc as submodules, with a build script for setting up links. Always being within a git repository became cumbersome, so I moved the build tools into their respective directories (~/src and ~/etc) and now clone and build each repository manually.

Lastly, since private repos aren't (weren't?) free, those submodule repos are really just branches of the same repo that share no common ancestors.

Re: Start all of your commands with a comma (2009)

#82

Post by wruza »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #15

I'm curious how folks manage their important local configurations, e.g. - is your ~/bin directory a git repo? - if you git to manage your dot files, do you use hard links or soft links?

My main system is windows, so it's c:/CmdTools repo in PATH. I tried to learn `stow`-likes, but it's not worth it. I just clone/pull/push it in that fixed location. Mostly cmdbash scripts.

More complex (multi-file) tools are usually separate ts or python projects. Node has {npm,yarn} link, which puts a starter .cmd somewhere in PATH, out of box. Python scripts I usually run through .cmd "alias" files in c:/CmdTools, there's no `pip link` afaik.

I always have MSYS2 installed and here's my cmdbash prolog:

  some.cmd:

    :
xbash.exe is just msys's bash.exe that I copied to avoid collisions with WSL (which is a useless PR nonsense). Same with xgrep, xfind, xecho, xmkdir, xsort.

This setup carried me for years and turns out to be a very reasonable windows/unix integration. I like unix architecture, but can't stand linux desktop. This year I've got a project related to linux desktop, and I'm literally become so stressed using it sometimes that I have to take a break or vent loudly.

Re: Start all of your commands with a comma (2009)

#83

Post by mixmastamyk »

dsp_person wrote: post #20
bqmjjx0kac wrote: post #12

> Because my shell script names tended to be short and pithy collections of lowercase characters, just like the default system commands, there was no telling when Linux would add a new command that would happen to have the same name as one of mine. Not sure I understand this problem. I just put my bin directory at the front of $PATH rather than the end. To browse my commands, I simply `ls ~/bin`.

One of the benefits is using fzf autocomplete. E.g. in fish type the first char of the command and Tab to launch fzf. Then `,`+Tab is a quick way to filter these custom commands. Versus `ls ~/bin` would be a lot of characters for something I do a lot, or maybe I'd be going `ls`+UpArrow+UpArrow+UpArrow to autocomplete that first.

The “ls “ part is not necessary for tab completion.

    ~/bin
Is enough. Not that short, but is something done infrequently in my experience. Maybe I’d do it more if it was easier?

Re: Start all of your commands with a comma (2009)

#84

Post by MadnessASAP »

meken wrote: post #62
thrdbndndn wrote: post #18

A kinda relevant question. I use Windows most of time. Like the author, I have bunch of CLI scripts (in Python mainly) which I put into my ~/bin/ equivalent. After setting python.exe as the default program for `.py` extension, and adding `.py` to `%pathext%`, I can now run my ~/bin/hello.py script at any path by just type `hello`, which I use hundreds of time a day. I now use Linux more and more (still a newbie) but…

Your example got me thinking about the difference between how the windows shell and Unix shell is designed. Seems like the windows shell knows about extensions, whereas the Unix shell does not That’s an interesting feature for a shell to have. Thanks!

It's can be traced back to the roots of each OS. Windows has it's heritage in the land of DOS where files had an 8 character name with a 3 character extension and that extension carried meaning for the OS.

Linux being of Unix ancestry which had no such concept as a file extension. It was the responsibility of the application or kernel to discern what type a file was. Typically by the first few bytes of a file and handle it appropriately.

I personally am a fan of the Unix way but I can see why some might prefer the DOS convention.

Re: Start all of your commands with a comma (2009)

#85

Post by tedunangst »

mozman wrote: post #16
tedunangst wrote: post #11

Funny. My ~/bin is filled with commands that I want to override the system version.

Wrappers or replacements? If it’s a wrapper do you remove local bin from path or hard code system path?

Yeah, shell script that runs /usr/bin/x or whatever.

Re: Start all of your commands with a comma (2009)

#90

Post by D-Coder »

MadnessASAP wrote: post #84
meken wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example got me thinking about the difference between how the windows shell and Unix shell is designed. Seems like the windows shell knows about extensions, whereas the Unix shell does not That’s an interesting feature for a shell to have. Thanks!

It's can be traced back to the roots of each OS. Windows has it's heritage in the land of DOS where files had an 8 character name with a 3 character extension and that extension carried meaning for the OS. Linux being of Unix ancestry which had no such concept as a file extension. It was the responsibility of the application or kernel to discern what type a file was. Typically by the first few bytes of a file and han…

Speaking of heritage... 8+3 goes back at least to DECSystem-10 on PDP-10s.
Post reply on HN