Re: [dev] s - suckless shell

From: Lee Fallat <>
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2016 10:37:00 -0400

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Ben Woolley <> wrote:
> We now have very good automation tools that are not shells, like Python and Lua, so wouldn't it make sense to take a second look at shells that are more specific to command interpretation?

This looks fun to talk about.

I think any minimal shell aims for simple command interpretation,
rather than support complex syntax and features majority wouldn't
really use. One time I was looking into shells that let the user use
general purpose languages (see: piper (python), temple os (its C
interpreter shell)), rather than shell script. I found those shells to
be both very expressive, easy to use, and extensible, because you can
just define another function, or import another library during
runtime. Some might say "but it's much more verbose". Well maybe the
defaults are, but you can create a new wrapper library that are single
letter functions.

I personally don't use those shells because they aren't widely used. I
need to keep myself familiarized with the hell that is bash, and we
know it isn't easy. We all have a list of what makes shells powerful
to us. Piping, redirection, execution, history, verbosity, simplicity,
bloat and so on. Use the tool that you like the most! Life is too
short to worry about "too many features" - it's easier to remove them
Received on Sun Aug 14 2016 - 16:37:00 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Aug 14 2016 - 16:48:12 CEST