Elvish, expressive programming language and a versatile interactive shell

https://elv.sh

by bwidlar • 2 years ago

177 114 2 years ago

elv.sh

tromp• 2 years ago

Cute choice of website elv.sh using the top level domain for Saint Helena [1], which even mentions

For the .sh file extension type, see shell script.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.sh

8372049• 2 years ago

It's funny how these tiny islands have played roles in military history. Saint Helena is famous for Napoleon's exile and death. Both SH and Ascension were important uboat staging bases during WW2, and RAF Ascension Island was an important airbase during WW2 and especially during the Falklands war.

voidUpdate• 2 years ago

Elvish: what Sean Connery calls the King of Rock and Roll

Galanwe3• 2 years ago

So I should change my shell, have it deployed everywhere, and learn a new language so that I can change:

    for x in *.jpg; do
      gm convert $x ${x#.jpg}.png
    done

    for x [*.jpg] {
      gm convert $x (str:trim suffix $x .jpg).png
    }

n0n0n4t0r• 2 years ago

So according to you, there should be no innovation, never?

Galanwe3• 2 years ago

No, but innovation should be major, not cosmetic.

emptysongglass• 2 years ago

After being a fish die-hard for like a decade I finally gave up and learned to embrace Bash for its ubiquity. I realized all I cared about in fish was the built-in autocomplete, colorized output, and history management, which I was able to bolt on in short order to Bash.

Now I use ble.sh [1] and Oh My Bash [2] and Atuin [3] and I love it.

This is really a field where I feel standardization is the better path. It's a similar feeling I get when I observe the vast array of notetaking apps I see made and think here is a place where it would be better to pick one FOSS solution and contribute.

[1] https://github.com/akinomyoga/ble.sh

[2] https://github.com/ohmybash/oh-my-bash

[3] https://atuin.sh/

dkarl• 2 years ago

It's a similar feeling I get when I observe the vast array of notetaking apps I see made and think here is a place where it would be better to pick one FOSS solution and contribute.

I feel the opposite -- I use a commercial note-taking app for the same reason I use bash. It kinda sucks, but it's on all my devices, and the extra work imposed by the suckiness is more than made up for by familiarity and by not having to invest any energy to make it work seamlessly across my devices.

noobermin2• 2 years ago

The second example was more unfamiliar, especially with the bespoke `{|h|...}` syntax. But yes, the first example looks...the same as a bash for loop.

latexr2• 2 years ago

especially with the bespoke `{|h|...}` syntax.

It’s similar to Ruby.

xiaq30• 2 years ago

There are explainers linked from each of the examples - in this case https://elv.sh/learn/scripting-case-studies.html#update-serv.... Hopefully that clears up things for you!

Galanwe3• 2 years ago

To be fair, all examples on the home page look kind of trivial in bash as well, which is why - to me - they seem a bit silly.

    var hosts = [[&name=a &cmd='apt update']
                 [&name=b &cmd='pacman -Syu']]
    # peach = "parallel each"
    peach {|h| ssh root@$h[name] $h[cmd] } $hosts

    hosts=( \
        "host_a" "apt update"  \
        "host_b" "pacman -Syu" \
    )
    printf "%s\n" "${hosts[@]}" | xargs -L2 bash -c 'echo ssh root@$0 -- $*'

and

    ~> var project = ~/project
    ~> rm -rf $projetc/bin
    compilation error: variable $projetc not found

    set -u
    project=~/project
    rm -rf $projetc/bin
    bash: projetc: unbound variable

Now of course, there are a lot of edge cases in bash, especially around escaping and quoting, which are not handled in my crude examples.

What annoys me with these new shells, is that they dont solve any issue of the real world.

Yes, your language is cute.

Yes it's safer and less error prone that bash, there's no denying that.

But it does not - and most likely will never - handle the trillion - arguably hacky - things that can are done in bash, because that would suddenly completely overbloat the language, multiply its complexity, etc.

Essentially that means it will always be some kind of niche toy with a couple of enthusiasts, while the rest of the world keep on sticking to bash, and overall nothing moved forward.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for writing toys. I also have hundreds of my own reimplementations of stuff just because it's fun to code, you learn stuff, etc. But I don't get the "I'm going to create a fancy website, build a community and post it on HN" vibe.

If you seriously think the shell scripting world need a refresher, then the real issue, and we all know it, is not the fanciness of the language. That's the fun part.

The real, actual work, is to provide a realistic path forward. Either by working on bash to improve its syntax to something more modern, maybe through `set` flags to keep backward compatibility. Or to write a transpiler to bash, but with safer and stronger semantics.

This is the actual path forward, and it's the _not fun_ part, it's grunt work, and nobody does it, meanwhile we can sit and use a shiny shell while complaining how bad and unsafe bash is.

latexr2• 2 years ago

Why the hostile tone? I don’t see anything on the website saying you should do it. You could, though, up to you. I doubt the authors had you in mind specifically when they wrote the tool.

They made something new and non-detrimental and are sharing it with the world. It’s fine if it’s not something you’re going to use. I won’t either, but I’m failing to see the point of ridiculing their effort.

Your example seems unfair, too. It’s not like that is the only use-case on the homepage.

BoingBoomTschak3• 2 years ago

At this point, I'd just use Tcl:

  foreach x [glob *.jpg] {
    exec gm convert $x [regsub {\.jpg$} $x {}].png
  }

(bonus, you can use `foreach x [glob *.jpg] y [glob *.png]` to iterate on more than one list at once)

The truth is: if you choose to use something rarer than a ten-leafed clover, you better have massively good reasons to do so. Otherwise, there are already other languages with good subprocess integration; pretty sure Guile would do the trick too.

xiaq30• 2 years ago

Tcl is actually an inspiration for Elvish, and Elvish has a "command language" flavor too.

The "everything is a string" idea sadly turned out to not work that well for most people though, so Elvish has lists, maps, and first-class functions :)

Izkata• 2 years ago

(bonus, you can use `foreach x [glob *.jpg] y [glob *.png]` to iterate on more than one list at once)

I don't know about Elvish, but globs in bash aren't part of the loop syntax, they're their own thing, so this also just works:

  for x in *.jpg *.png

hxelk1• 2 years ago

The thing is, the first example doesn't handle many edge cases which normally arise and are a common source of bugs and security vulnerabilities. The second example doesn't suffer from those issues by design.

In other words, it's OK to type the first example on the command line and it'll work just fine (and if it won't, you'll be able to step in and fix). But running it as part of anything automated would be haphazard.

As I read this, the whole point is that you have something that feels quite familiar syntactically to a common shell, but sane. Kudos to the author!

frankjr• 2 years ago

Assuming the first example is in Bash:

- You're not quoting your variables properly to prevent splitting and globbing.

- In case there are no jpg files in the working directory, Bash will put the pattern itself (*.jpg) into the $x variable. You need to explicitly check that the file in the variable actually exists before working on it.

Modern shells do not have these footguns.

teddyh• 2 years ago

The latter can be avoided with “shopt -s failglob”.

xiaq30• 2 years ago

In case there are no jpg files in the working directory, Bash will put the pattern itself (*.jpg) into the $x variable. You need to explicitly check that the file in the variable actually exists before working on it.

Indeed that's one thing Elvish has better defaults that I forgot to mention in https://elv.sh/learn/scripting-case-studies.html#jpg-to-png...., and now I've added that, thanks :)

xiaq30• 2 years ago

I would invite you to read the explainer for this script: https://elv.sh/learn/scripting-case-studies.html#jpg-to-png....

Maybe you're not as traumatized by the thousand small cuts when writing traditional shell scripts as I, and that's fair :) However, I'd also invite you to read the rest of the examples, which go into the deeper advantages.

I'd also say that you don't have to "change my shell, have it deployed everywhere, and learn a new language" to start adopting Elvish! It's very easy to get Elvish (https://elv.sh/get/), and you can start using it on one machine, or for one script without "switching" 100%. Think of it as another tool you can use alongside whatever shell you are using (I'd also refer you to the other comment I posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40317203).

mrbluecoat2• 2 years ago

Thanks for that succinct visual. Would be nice to have a side-by-side comparison like this for all the popular and up-and-coming shells. Really helps since the final choice is often influenced by style preference.

xiaq30• 2 years ago

You can find this in the explainer linked from the example too :) https://elv.sh/learn/scripting-case-studies.html#jpg-to-png....

https://elv.sh/learn/tour.html also has a big list of syntax comparison between bash and Elvish.

cess112• 2 years ago

Looked around a bit and didn't see anything about forks, does it have a wrapper for it? It's not clear from the introductory material how the background jobs work, if they can be IPC:d and foregrounded and so on.

It's one of the things that keeps me reaching for picolisp, the 'fork convenience function is quite nice for doing interactive parallel 'batching'.

sidkshatriya6• 2 years ago

I like Elvish. It's clean, consistent and stable. Writing a shell script in Elvish is so much more productive and simpler than, say, bash. There are are also fewer pitfalls and tricks you need to master.

The Elvish shell language doesn't change much which is nice nowadays. The Elvish executable has also got a built-in lsp which is another nice touch.

Finally it is a "proper" shell because it has job control (which other new age shells like nushell don't).

P.S. I like nushell too which has got more features, is more powerful but is still evolving. Maybe in a couple of more years it will stablize like Elvish already has. There are lots of similarities between Nushell and Elvish scripting language. I would recommend either of them.

xiaq30• 2 years ago

Hey, thanks for the compliment! Glad you've enjoyed Elvish.

Re job control - you can run a background job with &, and there are fg and bg commands, but you can't actually ^Z a running program (which is what most people mean by job control). I've heard people have success with https://github.com/yshui/job-security though.

Re Elvish and Nushell, I'd add my biased recommendation for Elvish because it has comprehensive reference documents (https://elv.sh/ref/) :)

sidkshatriya6• 2 years ago

The documentation of Elvish is indeed top notch. I also like the self contained nature of the project. Elvish is like a beautiful tool in your arsenal while nushell is a powerful but perhaps too feature-full scripting language.

An imperfect analogy: Elvish is like a compact OCaml while nushell is more like a Haskell or C++ of the scripting world !

mst7• 2 years ago

I'm afraid I really need ^Z, %-, %3 and %foo for interactive use.

See e.g. the top-right xterm in https://trout.me.uk/screenshot3.jpg for why.

Tried to switch to a ksh for a while and ran face first into that, though OpenBSD ksh has added it so I may attempt that one at some point.

(tabs don't fit my brain nearly as well and https://github.com/n-t-roff/heirloom-ex-vi is my usual editor and doesn't provide anything of that ilk anyway ... I may be an outlier ...)

The syntax and semantics seem really rather nice though, I may attempt elvish for scripting at some point.

hnlmorg2• 2 years ago

Murex has had job control support for literally years too.

There’s actually a lot of parallels between murex and Elvish. Both projects started around the same time, both written on Go. Both support structured data and smart data types.

The syntax differs a little between them two but concept wise they’re similar in a number of ways. I as (project author) just don’t do a particularly good job promoting murex. In part because I’d never want to force my own shell preferences onto others.

But It’s good that there’s so much choice these days and people aren’t stuck with the archaic decisions of the 70s

xiaq30• 2 years ago

Hiya! I, for one, would definitely welcome more promotion of Murex!

(Also just checked out Murex's website again, seems we reworked the style of the respective homepages around the same time :)

wg0• 2 years ago

does not change much so you mean no async await, no union types, no type hinting, no lambdas etc etc.

Kidding, I'll give it a try. Can it replace one's shell as daily driver?

xiaq30• 2 years ago

Yes! I haven't been using it as my daily driver for almost 10 years now.

There are detailed instructions on how to get it and use it as your default shell in https://elv.sh/get/.

noobermin2• 2 years ago

So, it's not for me, especially given the examples. As usual with these kinds of things (fish, zsh, etc) this really has everything to do with taste, especially since bash has such a difficult syntax...at least for those who aren't used to it. Even to this day, years later, I have to look up bits and pieces here and again if I don't use some of the ${}-type substitutions frequently.

xiaq30• 2 years ago

Even to this day, years later, I have to look up bits and pieces here and again if I don't use some of the ${}-type substitutions frequently.

In that case I think you should give Elvish a chance then :)

Honestly one of the motivations for writing a shell language was that I could never remember which of ${x%y} and ${x#y} is for trimming the suffix vs prefix. So Elvish just use function syntax - "str:trim-suffix $x y" and "str:trim-prefix $x y" - which I highlighted in the explainer of the first snippet (https://elv.sh/learn/scripting-case-studies.html#jpg-to-png....).

saurik2• 2 years ago

# is to the left of $ and removes the prefix. % is to the right of $ and removes the suffix.

xiaq30• 2 years ago

Author of Elvish here, glad to see it's on the homepage again :) AMA.

grzracz• 2 years ago

What's the primary reason you set out to build this? I like the look and feel of the language but I'm on the fence whether the drawbacks of using something different than bash are outweighed by the benefits of elvish.

sidkshatriya6• 2 years ago

Bash reigns supreme indeed. If you’re writing software for yourself or a small team the benefits of Elvish are higher productivity. Try it out — I was really satisfied at the power and cleanliness of the scripting language.

Bash will be dethroned some day. As general purpose languages like Rust, Julia, Python etc have risen, Fortran, pascal etc have declined. And so that will eventually happen with bash. Not “if” but “when” !

xiaq30• 2 years ago

I believe shells have the potential to be much more than what they are today, and traditional shells are held back by their rather weak languages.

Re the cost of switching: on the one hand, I'd say that "switching" is really the wrong mentality, because you can always still use bash! You can "switch" to Elvish as your interactive shell and still use bash for scripting. Or you can "switch" to Elvish for some new scripts and still use bash as your interactive shell (and your existing scripts). If you want to give Elvish a try, you can just do it without giving up everything you do with bash today, and reap the incremental benefits of using a better shell.

On the other hand, the mental barrier of adopting "a new thing" is definitely real, even after you overcome the more irrational fears. We only want so much software in our lives anyway. To that I'd say Elvish needs to be more compelling than what it is today. Elvish today, with its nice interactive features and a real programming language, is perhaps 2x to 4x better than traditional shells on its own (if we ignore the whole ecosystem issue), but it needs to be more than that to stand out to people as something radically better. I'm still trying to figure out how to do that, but two ideas I'm exploring are:

- Make it super easy to build TUIs in Elvish - we've had a "renaissance" of TUI tools in recently years, but if you want to build a TUI from scratch it's still surprisingly complicated. Much simpler than building GUIs, but still much more complex than just building a CLI. I feel Elvish as a shell language is a really good place to have a nice TUI framework in.

- Make it super easy to manage a simple homelab or build farm in Elvish - this is traditionally a strength of shells and people still cobble together shell scripts for this purpose, but traditional shell languages are clumsy and you can't easily expose a nice UI from shell scripts. It would be very nice if you can compose some Elvish scripts together and have a nice TUI or a web UI for management at a very low extra cost.

sidkshatriya6• 2 years ago

Thanks for Elvish. On a daily driver basis I still use fish. I find the fish autocomplete a bit more compelling. I’m more productive with fish on the prompt (though I do think the elvish scripting language is nicer).

In elvish I need to request an autocomplete— in fish I get a suggestion in a light font which is usually a good one.

Another nice thing in fish is that valid file names get automatically underlined. It’s another subtle but useful feature.

So I think you know what is coming. A feature request :-):

Please make Elvish prompt autocomplete/suggestions more like fish. I wouldn’t be surprised if this has not been requested already !

xiaq30• 2 years ago

There's indeed a feature request for it: https://github.com/elves/elvish/issues/322

I can't promise anything, but I'm undertaking a major refactoring of Elvish's TUI and that should make it much easier to implement this feature in the near future.

negus2• 2 years ago

Why haven't you decided to stick with the object-oriented shell like PowerShell does?

xiaq30• 2 years ago

PowerShell is quite heavyweight. Aside from the feel of the language and the requirement of .Net runtime, it also makes PowerShell very slow to start up, which is a dealbreaker for interactive usage for me.

Also when I started Elvish 10 years ago (!) PowerShell wasn't ported to non-Windows operating systems yet, so it wasn't even viable for most people.

stonedog2• 2 years ago

Hi, thanks for your time! I'm really keen on finding alternatives for bash scripting, and from looking at the examples, it seems to go a long way in that direction.

I'm not keen on trading bashisms for elvishisms though :-) A somewhat random example from looking at the docs, where you have this example:

~> curl -s https://dl.elv.sh/$platform:os'-'$platform:arch/elvish-HEAD....

Quoting '-' instead of using (bash-style) "${platform:os}-${platform:arch}" seems really counterintuitive to me. After all, '-' is simply itself (a plain dash), it's the variable name that is special here and deserves quoting. Any thoughts on this?

xiaq30• 2 years ago

You can actually wrap variables with {} (which functions just as a grouping construct in Elvish):

~> curl -s https://dl.elv.sh/{$platform:os}-{$platform:arch}/elvish-HEA.......

It's more verbose than quoting the dash so I opted to the latter.

You seem to use "elvishism" in a negative way, and this particular example is one of the more quirky ones, but the whole reason you would use Elvish is that it's different from other shells! :)

bee_rider• 2 years ago

The directory history idea seems incredibly useful, but I’ve never see of it before. Did you come up with it yourself?

It has the characteristics of a really great idea: seems obvious in retrospect, doesn’t look too difficult to implement, but somehow everybody seems to have… just missed it?

xiaq30• 2 years ago

It was inspired by browsers' location bar - the name (location mode) and the default ^L binding are a nod to browsers too.

These days browsers will often suggest results from search engines but back then (at least in Firefox?) it was just history and bookmarks.

garyrob• 2 years ago

It would be nice to be able to make an executable version of an Elvish script that could be installed and run without having to install Elvish separately. So this executable would have to contain the Elvish interpreter.

Is that doable?

scutrell• 2 years ago

Two quick questions: Is there a way to implement !!? Via functions maybe? "Last Command" looks to be hotkey based, and I can't think of how that would work.

Related: is there a comprehensive list of hotkeys floating around? I didn't see it in the docs. Things like Alt-Enter and Alt-, are mentioned in the Quick Start, but I couldn't find them elsewhere.

joveian• 2 years ago

Thanks, I like that it seems similar enough to posix shell to draw me in before surprising me :). I like how the option vs arguments distinction is done and generally a lot of posix shell issues are improved. A few feature requests/impressions:

1) Maybe link at the top of the ref page to the learn page? I started looking at ref but some stuff I needed to know was much better explained under learn and it took me a while to notice that it was there also (I'm guessing the existance of ref would be more obvious from the learn page).

2) Local documentation is vital for a shell, if there is a way to generate a man page from the available documentation that would be quite helpful (at least instaling the website would be good, but that looks like a package issue that should be easy to do).

3) If I want the equivalent of fd -X but being able to use aliases (functions in elvish) there is from-terminated and (all) but despite the long command line lengths these days it can overflow. A builtin simplified version of xargs that works with elvish lists and aggregates arguments while breaking into acceptable length command lines would be great.

4) There seems to be no way to execute code from a different file in the current context? For bash to get aliases in fd -X you can use a complicated fd ... -X bash -ic '<alias> "$@"' 'fd bash', however it seems that elvish both doesn't have -i and has no way to even source the rc file from elvish -c? Or to split rc files into multiple files without using modules?

5) &> and to a lesser extent |& are handy in bash to simplify combining stderr and stdout. Hopefully elvish doesn't have the 2>&1 placement issues that posix shells do but even if not I'd consider a shorthand worthwhile.

6) Some type of cooperative locking would be helpful along the lines of Debian's lockfile-progs but built in to make it easy to avoid scripts that break if you accidently run it twice at the same time (ideally compatible with lockfile-progs unless there is a good reason not to be).

7) Beyond that, some type of built in concurrency managed database based on elivish data types might be worth considering to simplify sharing state between independent execution of related utilities (or multiple execution of a single utility).

8) I like your idea of exposing more TUI abilities. In addition to what you said, being able to create a status line or two while preserving the scrolling history of other commands would be helpful (and this would be potentially interesting in an interactive shell also). I like your rprompt.

Overall, I like the look of elvish and for some reason it seems more approachable to me (not a big fan of lisp) than the PowerShell style shells.

eternityforest• 2 years ago

So many better shells! I stay with bash because it's the standard, but it sure would be nice if everyone could switch at the same time.

I don't see infix math though, which is one thing I'd really like to have in a shell, although maybe that better done with a one letter alias to Python or the like.

mst7• 2 years ago

The examples for the math functions (https://elv.sh/ref/math.html) include 1/2 as an input so infix math appears to be there (I'm undercaffeinated so haven't found the correct doc page to describe it, only proof of its existence, but y'know, it's a start ;)

xiaq30• 2 years ago

Actually 1/2 is there because Elvish supports rational numbers, unfortunately there's no infix math. (Elvish supports arbitrary-precision integers and rationals.)

aeonik3• 2 years ago

Is there a "checklist" for writing your own shell? Or a comprehensive guide?

This looks very cool, and I've been having a lot of inspiration to write my own shell, but I want to make it vaguely compatible with my system.

POSIX compatibility might be overkill for the start.

sidkshatriya6• 2 years ago

There are so many cool shells out there — I would suggest studying the source code of any of the popular ones written in a modern high level typed language. That way navigating the code-base to understand how things are done will be easy. No point looking at old crusty codebases written in C.

Elvish is written in golang. I’m sure that’s going to be quite grokkable if you want to understand how a shell is written ?

aeonik3• 2 years ago

I actually have a really hard time just reading source code to understand it.

Even if it's heavily commented, I learn better from debate, trade off analysis, or failure analysis.

To put it simply, I like argue and break things.

nocman3• 2 years ago

No point looking at old crusty codebases written in C.

I understand why someone might not want to start there, but I think that could be a bit short-sighted. I think people are far too quick to dismiss code that's old. Yeah, it may have a lot of warts (for a lot of reasons, some more valid than others), but that doe not negate the value of understanding how something was implemented.

I'm also not suggesting this would be easy. There are some very complicated C codebases out there. I'm just saying that I disagree that there's no point in examining them.

xiaq30• 2 years ago

80% of the shell is just a normal interpreter. Crafting Interpreters (http://craftinginterpreters.com) is a pretty popular book for that.

The remaining parts are stuff about process and file semantics - you can find that in APUE, or really from reading manpages. You also need to learn the arcane VT100 escape sequences for the TUI, and there are plenty of articles for that too.

aeonik3• 2 years ago

I actually have Crafting Interpreters on my shelf!

It looks like APUE might be the ticket to fill in some of my gaps though. Thank you for the suggestion.

Escape sequences should be fine (famous last words?).

jhbadger• 2 years ago

I was expecting a programming language that was based on Tolkien's Elvish languages of Quenya or Sindarin (the way that some programming languages have been based on non-English languages) and although this isn't the case, I see in the list of modules for Elvish that someone has written a command to give the current date in Sindarin, so there's that.

haolez• 2 years ago

Wow, this looks awesome and carefully designed! It even has an official VSCode plugin with a language server[0]. Well done, author!

[0] https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=elves.el...

lebuffon• 2 years ago

Marketing slogan for the conference T-shirts: "Elvish is not dead" ?-)

You're welcome.

d_burfoot2• 2 years ago

I'm impressed/jealous of engineering folks who can build nice, clean, elegant web sites for their projects. Do you all just know enough web design stuff to do this on your own? Or did you hire someone?

xiaq30• 2 years ago

I take your comment as implying that https://elv.sh is nice, clean and elegant, and thank you for the compliment :)

I can't speak for other people, but I made it on my own and don't have any formal training in design.

With the risk of stating the obvious, you first have to realize that as a developer you can make a reasonably clean-looking website on your own. There are just a few basic ingredients: fonts, spacing, positioning, background shades, and rounded corners. You can do all of these from CSS and there is a lot of good resources for CSS today.

After that it's studying other websites, replicating the style you like, and a lot of trial and error. You can do a lot of experiments from the browser's dev tool before committing them into the stylesheet too. But at the end of the day, you have to put in some time. The layout of the current homepage was redone just a few months back and it took me (IIRC) 3 days to tweak everything to my satisfaction.

d_burfoot2• 2 years ago

Thanks for the ideas, and yes it was a compliment :-)

__MatrixMan__2• 2 years ago

This closure syntax, with the vertical bars around the parameter:

    peach {|h| ssh root@$h[name] $h[cmd] } $hosts

Does it harken back to some popular language? I first encountered it in nushell but now that I've seen it in elvish I'm wondering where it came from.

svieira• 2 years ago

Ruby did it first, but it goes farther back at least to Smalltalk if not further.

xiaq30• 2 years ago

It wasn't directly borrowed from any other language (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40317577) but there's definitely something nice about the syntax that causes multiple languages to use it.

Elvish predates Nushell by quite a few years BTW :)

__MatrixMan__2• 2 years ago

I had that backwards, perhaps they took inspiration from you :)

sestep• 2 years ago

Rust uses the same syntax: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch13-01-closures.html

steveklabnik• 2 years ago

Which came from Ruby which came from Smalltalk.

netbioserror• 2 years ago

Really nice shell! I'm giving it a shot. I appreciate that it's got a coherent design, a minimal footprint, and is easy to get up and running with. Might start migrating some of my test scripts from Bash to this given how clunky lists and looping are in Bash.

hot_gril• 2 years ago

I really like the design of that webpage.

Elvish, expressive programming language and a versatile interactive shell

Related Stories