I like the idea of piping structured data between processes instead of streams of bytes, but that's what PowerShell is for. I don't think I've ever met another dev who likes PowerShell
I have, a few! But they are the kind of dev to never publish their work anywhere, not even little shell scripts. Secretive windows power users
To handle the transition to/from structured data, an idea I had was to omit one of the brackets in these names, so for example "ls[" would emit structured data but accept (well, assuming "ls" was a command that took stdin) an unstructured bytestream, and something like "]cat" would take in structured data on stdin but emit raw data... "cat[" would take raw data and... interpret it as JSON? or something? and output that as structured data? I don't know, it has to be fleshed out, but this could work maybe!
To get the JSON data back to a visual format like a table, we'd probably have to explicitly do what NuShell implicitly calls when you don't provide it (I forgot the name of it).
anyway, I haven't even begun a POC of this idea, but it was one I had. Anyone else like this idea?
It basically sits somewhere between Powershell and Bash: typed pipelines like Powershell but without sacrificing familiarity with all the CLI commands you already use day in and day out.
https://github.com/lmorg/murex
As an aside, I’m about to drop a massive update in the next few days that will make the shell even more intuitive to use.
(reading more) Super cool. Since it's Go, does that mean runtime errors will silently fail and keep chugging along? /dig ;)
Can you customize the PS1?
At the moment there is POC code to transmit over fd 3 but I’m looking into using UNIX sockets instead.
> Super cool. Since it's Go, does that mean runtime errors will silently fail and keep chugging along? /dig ;)
This project predates Rust 1.0 so it was a no brainier at the time to use Go. But actually I do think Go is well suited for this type of problem because much as some complain about errors being regular types, the way Go encourages granular handling of errors rather than larger try / catch blocks or exceptions does lead to more tailored error messages. Which ultimately helps explain the problem better for the end user.
Not taking anything away from Rust or any other language. Nor am I saying Go’s error handling doesn’t have its problems. Just that I’d probably choose Go again if I were to start this project tomorrow.
> Can you customize the PS1?
Every part of the shell is customisable. However rather than having hard to discover environmental variables that can alter the shells behaviour, instead there is a command called config that allows you to inspect every option.
I have. But they have never used bash, zsh, Fish, or NuShell.