Hacker News Reader

Comment by laurent123456 | Hacker News Reader

Instead of having a hierarchy of scripts, why not use namespaces - blog_publish, blog_preview, etc? Then instead of typing `sd blog publish`, you type `blog_publish`. With this you have built-in autocompletion, no need for a third-party tool, a shorter command, and an easy way to see all your scripts at a glance since they'll all be in the same directory.

View on HN

You can also set the PATH_DIRS shell option and type, e.g. `blog/publish` if you have a ~/bin/blog directory full of scripts. Easier than an underscore.

I mean, yeah, sd is only a marginal improvement over not sd. It's not a lifechanging script. The differences are:

1. sd makes it easier to create new scripts. Instead of vim ~/bin/blog_publish, writing out the shebang, chmod +x ~/bin/blog_publish, you say `sd blog publish --new`. It sets the permissions and preloads it with a template.

2. Ditto for for other convenience commands: `sd blog publish --edit`, `sd blog publish --cat`.

3. Auto-generates usage text in the autocomplete menu.

4. sd scripts exist in a separate autocomplete namespace from non-sd scripts. b<tab> gives you, you know, bison, binhex, any commands on your PATH. sd b<tab> gives you only your user scripts that start with b.

5. Hierarchical autocomplete is more convenient, if you have more than one level of namespacing.

I'd say one reason is that nobody wants to type '_' :)

Maybe using '.' would work (ie. blog.publish) but the sub-command pattern (ie space separating) seems well established and slightly easier than typing '.'

sd seems to provide a description for the command, too, which your solution wouldn't provide.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com