- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
I’ve been trying nushell and words fail me. It’s like it was made for actual humans to use! 🤯 🤯 🤯
It even repeats the column headers at the end of the table if the output takes more than your screen…
Trying to think of how to do the same thing with awk
/grep
/sort
/whatever
is giving me a headache. Actually just thinking about awk
is giving me a headache. I think I might be allergic.
I’m really curious, what’s your favorite shell? Have you tried other shells than your distro’s default one? Are you an awk wizard or do you run away very fast whenever it’s mentioned?
I’m an absolute Linux tard, so it’s hilarious to me trying to read and understand most of these comments
I used nushell for a good 6 months, it was nice having structured data, but the syntax difference to bash which I use for my day job was just too jarring to stick with.
Fish was (for me) the right balance of nice syntactic sugar and being able to reasonably expect a bash idiom will work.
I love Nushell, it’s so much more pleasant for writing scripts IMO. I know some people say they’d just use Python if they need more than what a POSIX shell offers, but I think Nushell is a perfect option in between.
With a Nushell scripts you get types, structured data, and useful commands for working with them, while still being able to easily execute and pipe external commands. I’ve only ever had two very minor gripes with Nushell, the inability to detach a process, and the lack of a
-l
flag forcp
. Now that uutils supports the-l
flag, Nushell support is a WIP, and I realized systemd-run is a better option than just detaching processes when SSHd into a server.I know another criticism is that it doesn’t work well with external cli tools, but I’ve honestly never had an issue with any. A ton of CLI tools support JSON output, which can be piped into
from json
to make working with it in Nushell very easy. Simpler tools often just output a basic table, which can be piped intodetect columns
to automatically turn it into a Nushell table. Sometimes strange formatting will make this a little weird, but fixing that formatting with some string manipulation (which Nushell also makes very easy) is usually still easier than trying to parse it in Bash.That looks a lot like PowerShell
PowerShell without the awful syntax
What awful syntax?
Ffs bash uses
echo "${filename%.*}"
andsubstring=${string:0:5}
andlower="${var,,}"
andtitle="${var^}"
&c. It doesn’t usefor assignment, only in expressions.
So you drive daily with nushell and then script in bash for portability?
Sounds not bad actually…
I’m really curious, what’s your favorite shell?
Emacs eshell+eat
It essentially reverses the terminal/shell relationship. Here, it’s the shell that starts a terminal session for every command. Eshell is also tightly integrated with Emacs and has access to all the extended functionality. You can use Lisp in one-liners, you can pipe output directly to an emacs buffer, you can write custom commands as lisp functions, full shortcut customization not limited to terminal keys, history search via the completion framework (i.e. consult-history), easy prompt customization, etc.
There’s also Tramp, which lets you transparently
cd
into remote hosts via ssh, docker containers, SMB/NFS-shares, archive files, and work with them as if they were normal directories (obviously with limited functionality in some cases, like archives).And probably a lot of stuff I’m missing right now.
Until you discover nushell’s (lack of) quoting rules
Can you elaborate?
Last I checked, there was no rigorous system for how quoting worked, such as how to escape a quote inside a string.
I’ve been using fish (with starship for prompt) for like a year I think, after having had a self-built zsh setup for … I don’t know how long.
I’m capable of using
awk
but in a very simple way; I generally prefer being able to usejq
. IMO both awk and perl are sort of remnants of the age before JSON became the standard text-based structured data format. We used to have to write a lot of dinky little regex-based parsers in Perl to extract data. These days we likely get JSON and can operate on actual data structures.I tried
nu
very briefly but I’m just too used to POSIX-ish shells to bother switching to another model. For scripting I’ll usewith
set -eou pipefail
but very quickly switch to Python if it looks like it’s going to have any sort of serious logic.My impression is that there’s likely more of us that’d like a less wibbly-wobbly, better shell language for scripting purposes, but that efforts into designing such a language very quickly goes in the direction of nu and oil and whatnot.
nu
's commands also work on JSON, so you don’t really need jq (or xq or yq) any more. It offers a unified set of commands that’ll work on almost any kind of structured data.That’s interesting I hadn’t thought about the JSON angle! Do you mean that you can actually use
jq
on regular command outputs likels -l
?Oil is an interesting project and the backward compatibility with bash is very neat! I don’t see myself using it though, since it’s syntax is very close to bash on purpose I’d probably get oil syntax and bash syntax all mixed up in my head and forget which is which… So I went with nushell because it doesn’t look anything like bash. If you know python what do you think about xonsh? I
That’s interesting I hadn’t thought about the JSON angle! Do you mean that you can actually use
jq
on regular command outputs likels -l
?No, you need to be using a tool which has json output as an option. These are becoming more common, but I think still rare among the GNU coreutils.
ls
output especially is unparseable, as in, there are tons of resources telling people not to do it because it’s pretty much guaranteed to break.There’s jc (CLI tool and python library that converts the output of popular command-line tools, file-types, and common strings to JSON, YAML, or Dictionaries).
You’ve opened a rabbit hole I know I’m just going to fall down… thanks netizen!
thanks, good thread.
Nushell looks cool but I prefer to stick with the POSIXes so that I know my scripts will always work and syntax always does what I expect it to. I use zsh as a daily driver, and put up with various bashes, ashes, dashes, that come pre-installed with systems I won’t be using loads (e.g. temporary vms).
Always confuses me when people say this. You can use multiple different shells / scripting languages, just as you can use multiple programming languages.
I know that. I just don’t have a use case for alternative shells. Zsh works fine for me and I know how it works. I don’t have problems that need fixing, so I don’t need to take the time to learn a new, incompatible shell.
Some people work on machines where they are not allowed to install anything.
What does that have to do with anything?
You said you/I/everyone can use multiple shells, I said: no, I can’t, at least not on all the machines that I have to use.
Your scripts should have Bourne shebangs
Yeah, there should be a clear separation between scripts, which should have a shebang, and interactive use.
If a script starts acting oddly after someone does a
chsh
, then that script is broken. Hopefully people don’t actually distribute broken script files that have some implicit dependency on an unspecified interpreter in this day and age.They have
!/bin/sh
shebangs./bin/sh
is a symlink, in my case to zsh. I like using one language.than your hashbangs are bad. isn’t their point to tell the kernel exactly which interpreter can process it correctly?
They’re posix scripts… Any posix compliant bin/sh can interpret them.
To be fair, I’m fairly sure the zsh interpreter has a POSIX sh mode
Hopefully you’re not using the sh language—hopefully you’re restraining yourself from using any of the non-POSIX extensions then
I don’t really mind having a non-POSIX shell since it doesn’t prevent bash scripts from working, but I get that if you want portability bash is still best since it’ll work mostly anywhere.
If I can shebang nutshell (assuming all the builtins from bash or even sh work) and pass a flag to remove all the fancy UI-for-humans formatting so that piped commands int eh scripts work, then I think this is incredible.
Yeah having this installed along side other more “standard” shells is fine I guess, but it looks like maybe it has some neat functionality that is more difficult in other shells? I guess I’d need to read up on it more but having a non-interactive mode for machines to read more easily would be a huge plus for it overall. I suppose that depends on what it offers/what it’s trying to accomplish.
The Unicode bars aren’t actually stored; that’s just the graphical representation of the table datatype which you can think of as JSON
Like PowerShell does?
exactly
some claim that was the inspiration for nushell: powershell but less verbose and more bashy
I love NuShell but it is annoying when using LLMs to generate troubleshooting code.
I like nushell, but I love xonsh. Xonsh is the bastard love child of Python and Bash.
it can be thought of as:
- try this statement in Python
- if there’s an exception, try it in bash.
Now, that’s not a very accurate description, because the reality is more nuanced, but it allows for things like:
for file in !(find | grep -i '[.]mp3^'): file = Path(file.strip()) if file != Path('.') and file != file.with_suffix('.mp3'): mv @(file) @(file.with_suffix('.mp3'))
Now, there are things in there I wouldn’t bother with normally - like, rather than using
mv
, I’d just usefile.rename()
, but the snippet shows a couple of the tools for interaction between xonsh and sh.- !(foo) - if writing python, execute foo, and return lines
- @(foo) - if writing sh, substitute with the value of the foo variable.
But, either a line is treated in a pyhony way, or in a shelly way - and if a line is shelly, you can reference Python variables or expressions via @(), and if it’s Pythony, you can execute shell code with !() or $(), returning the lines or the exact value, respectively.
Granted, I love python and like shell well enough, and chimeras are my jam, so go figure.
Xonsh is also a really cool option. If I used Python more regularly and was more comfortable using it without having to look stuff up, I’d probably use it over Nushell.
Yeah, I think if I wasn’t familiar with Python, it’d be nushell all the way.
Does this offer anything of pure python?
It’s a superset of python, so valid python should run fine. Imports into your shell are doable, too – for example, I import
path.Path
in my xonshrc, so it’s always available when I hit the shell. I don’t often have to usePath
, because regular shell commands are often more straightforward. But when I do, it’s nice to have it already loaded. Granted, that could get kooky, depending on what you import and execute.You can associate/shebang Xonsh with .xsh files, or run “xonsh foo.xsh” - and that works like “bash foo.sh” would, except using xonsh syntax, of course.
It’s not Bash compatible - copypasta of scripts may not work out. But it’s a good shell with some typical shell semantics.
there are some great plugins, too - like autovox, which allows you to create python venvs associated with specific subfolders. so,
cd myproject
does the equivalent ofcd myproject; . path/to/venv/bin/activate
.overall, there definitely is some jank, but it’s a great tool and I love it.
I prefer getting comfortable with bash, because it’s everywhere and I need it for work anyway (no fancy shells in remote VMs). But you can customize bash a lot to give more colored feedback or even customize the shortcuts with readline. Another one is pwsh (powershell) because it’s by default in Windows machines that (sadly) I sometimes have to use as VMs too. But you can also install it in linux since it’s now open source.
But if I wanted to experiment personally I’d go for xonsh, it’s a python-based one. So you have all the tools and power of python with terminal convenience.
Yeah if you need to work on machines with bash it makes sense to stick with it. Sorry you have to work on Windows… how is powershell compared to bash?
I don’t know python but xonsh seems really cool, especially since like nushell it works on both linux and windows so you don’t have to bother about OS specific syntax
powershell, in concept, is pretty powerful since it’s integrated with C# and allows dealing with complex data structures as objects too, similar to nushell (though it does not “pretty-print” everything the way nushell does, at least by default).
But in practice, since I don’t use it as much I never really get used to it and I’m constantly checking how to do things… I’m too used to posix tools and I often end up bringing over a portable subset of msys2, cygwin or similar whenever possible, just so I can use grep, sed, sort, uniq, curl, etc in Windows ^^U …however, for scripts where you have to deal with structured data it’s superior since it has builtin methods for that.
Looks like it’s taken a page from PowerShell in passing structured data rather than just text.
Yeah, it has. I think they started out as loving the concepts of PowerShell but hating the implementation, combined with the fact that PowerShell is clearly a Windows-first shell and doesn’t work so well on other OSes (it surprised me a lot to find out that PowerShell even has support for linux).
nu
tries to implement these concepts in a way that’s more universal and can work equally well on Linux, macOS or Windows.Powershell works really well on other OSs now. I use it on MacOS and Linux daily. I might loath MS but Powershell is a fantastic shell and after working with an object-oriented shell I hate going back to anything else.
Oh I didn’t know powershell did that too! It sure beats endless parsing errors
That was the foundational concept in powershell; everything is an object. They then went a ruined it with insane syntax and a somewhat logical, but entirely in practice verb-noun command structure.
Nushell is powershell for humans. And helps that it runs across all systems. It’s one of the first things I install.
somewhat logical, but entirely in practice verb-noun command structure.
That’s supposed to be “impractical”, not “in practice”, for others reading along.
For example, the “proper” command to list a directory is:
Get-ChildItem
The “proper” command to fetch a webpage is:Invoke-WebRequest https://example.com/
In these particular cases, they do have aliases defined, so you can use
ls
,dir
andcurl
instead, but …yeah, that’s still generally what the command names are like.It’s partially more verbose than C#, which is one of the most verbose programming languages out there. I genuinely feel like this kind of defeats the point of having a scripting language in the first place, when it isn’t succinct.
Like, you’re hardly going to use it interactively, because it is so verbose, so you won’t know the commands very well. Which means, if you go to write a script with Powershell, you’ll need to look up how to do everything just as much as with a full-fledged programming language. And I do typically prefer the better tooling of a full-fledged programming language…
I’ve used nushell for several months, and it really is an amazing shell
It feels more like an actual language than arcane runes, and I can easily makes chains and pipelines and things that would be difficult in bash
Additionally, it makes a pretty good scripting language
I’ve had nushell as my daily driver for a couple years now and I love it. “Made for actual humans to use” is exactly the description I’d give.