At least nowadays LLMs can rewrite Bash to JS/Python/Ruby pretty quickly.
#!/usr/bin/env rad
---
Dev automation script.
---
args:
build b bool # Build the project
test t bool # Run tests
lint l bool # Run linter
run r bool # Start dev server
release R bool # Release mode
filter f str? # Test filter pattern
filter requires test
if build:
mode = release ? "--release" : ""
print("Building ({release ? 'release' : 'debug'})...")
$`cargo build {mode}`
if lint:
print("Linting...")
$`cargo clippy -- -D warnings`
if test:
f = filter ? "-- {filter}" : ""
print("Running tests{filter ? ' (filter: {filter})' : ''}...")
$`cargo test {f}`
if run:
bin = release ? "target/release/server" : "target/debug/server"
$`./{bin}`
Usage: ./dev -b (build), ./dev -blt -f "test_auth" (build, lint, test auth), ./dev -r (just run).
- when ls started quoting filenames with spaces (add -N)
- when perl stopped being installed by default in CentOS and AlmaLinux (had to add dnf install -y perl)
- when egrep alias disappeared (use grep -E)
Your fault: http://mywiki.wooledge.org/ParsingLs
The best way is a scripting language with locked-down dependency spec inside the script. Weirdly .NET is leading the way here.
bash is glue and for me, glue code must survive the passage of time. The moment you use a high-level language for glue code it stops being glue code.
Such as?
One good example is `uuidgen`
That's neither a standard CLI utility nor a bash builtin.
If using a programming language with locked-down package dependencies, then all you need is the compiler/interpreter and your script will work.
Aside: I am somewhat disappointed that the @std guys don't (re)implement some of the bits that are part of Deno or node compatibility in a consistent way, as it would/could/should be more stable over time.
I like Deno/TS slightly more because my package/library and version can be called directly in the script I'm executing, not a separate .csproj file.
I suppose it can be nice if you are already in a JS environment, but wouldn't the author's need be met by just putting their shell commands into a .sh file? This way is more than a little over-engineered with little benefit in return for that extra engineering.
The reasons (provided by the author) for creating a Make.ts file is completely met by popping your commands into a .sh file.
With the added advantage that I don't need to care about what else needs to be installed on the build system when I check out a project.
I just don't see the advantages.
The use-case, as per the author's stated requirements, was to do away with pressing up arrow or searching history.
Exactly what benefit does Make.ts provide over Make.sh in this use-case? I mean, I didn't choose what the use-case it, the author did, and according to the use-case chosen by him, this is horrible over-engineered, horribly inefficient, much more fragile, etc.
I've found that Deno with TS specifically lets me be much more consistent working on projects with workers across Windows, Mac and Linux/WSL.
For both scripts, everything interesting is installed via Nix, so there's little reliance on special casing various distros', built-in package managers.
In both cases, all scripts have to pass ShellCheck to "build". They can't be deployed or committed with obvious parse errors or ambiguities around quoting or typos in variable names.
In the case of the scripts that are tools for developers, the Bash interpreter, coreutils, and all external commands are provided by Nix, which hardcodws their full path into the scripts. The scripts don't care if you're on Linux or macOS— they don't even care what's on your PATH (or if it's empty). They embrace "modern" Bash features and use whatever CLI tools provide the most readable interface.
Is it my favorite language? No. But it often has the best ROI, and portability and most gotchas are solved pretty well if you know what tools to use, especially if your scripts are simple.
As soon as you have state accumulating somewhere, branching or loops it becomes chaotic too quickly.