Comment by elviejo

The docs are terrible, and I've always meant to go back and improve them... but it's never quite been a priority and I've never actually summoned the motivation to do it...

But it's always nice to hear when someone uses it and likes it despite that!

> 3. from what I understand, shell syntax is available only at REPL top level. Once you switch to Lisp syntax with `(`, you can return to shell syntax only with `)`. Thus means you cannot embed shell syntax inside Lisp syntax, i.e. you cannot do `(define j {find -type f | less})`

It's possible I misunderstand what you mean because I'm not sure what piping to less is supposed to accomplish here, but this is not true. The following program works just fine:

    #lang rash

    (require racket/port
             racket/string)

    (define (echo!!! message)
      (define output {echo $message |> port->string |> string-trim})
      (string-append output "!!!"))

    (echo!!! "Hello")

Yes, Rash has a variety of limitations. Let me give some more context to these:

>1. no job control

Racket is missing a feature in its rktio library needed to do job control with its process API, which Rash uses. At one point I added one or two other minor features needed for job control, but I ran out of steam and never finished the final one. It's a small feature, even, though now I don't remember much of the context. I hope I wrote enough notes to go back and finish this some day.

>2. multi-line editing is limited

I always intended to write a nice line editor that would do this properly. But, again, I never got around to it. I would still like to, and I will probably take a serious look at your line editor some time.

The design was intended as something to use interactively as well as for scripting. But since I never improved the line editing situation, even I only use it for scripting. After documentation issues, this is the most pressing thing that I would fix.

>3. from what I understand, shell syntax is available only at REPL top level. Once you switch to Lisp syntax with `(`, you can return to shell syntax only with `)`. Thus means you cannot embed shell syntax inside Lisp syntax, i.e. you cannot do `(define j {find -type f | less})`

As mentioned is not correct, you can recursively switch between shell and lisp.

>4. shell commands are Lisp functions, not Lisp objects. Inspecting and redirecting them after they have been created is difficult

This one is a design flaw. I've meant to go back and fix it (eg. just retrofitting a new pipe operator that returns the subprocess pipeline segment as an object rather than its ports or outputs), but, of course, haven't gotten around to it.

>5. Rash is written in Racket, which has larger RAM footprint than schemesh running on vanilla Chez Scheme: at startup, ~160MB vs. ~32MB

Yep.

>6. Racket/Rash support for multi-language at REPL is limited: once you do `#lang racket`, you cannot go back to `#lang rash`

So actually `#lang` is not supported at all in the REPL. It's neither supported in the Racket REPL nor the rash repl. In practice, what `#lang` does is (1) set the reader for a module, and (2) set the base import for the module, IE what symbol definitions are available. With the REPL you have to do this more manually. The repl in Racket is sort of second class in various ways, in part due to the “the top level is hopeless” problems for macros. (Search for that phrase and you can find many issues with repls and macros discussed over the years in the Racket mailing list.) Defining a new `#lang` in Racket includes various pieces about setting up modules specifically, and since the top level repl is not a module, it would need some different support that is currently not there, and would need to be retrofitted for various `#lang`s. But you can start a repl with an arbitrary reader, and use `eval` with arbitrary modules loaded or symbols defined. My intention with a rash line editor would also have been to make some infrastructure for better language-specific repls in racket generally. But, well, obviously I never actually did it. If I do make time for rash repl improvements in the near future, it will just as likely be ways for using it more nicely with emacs rather than actually writing a new line editor... we'll see.

I'm always sad when I think about how I've left Rash to languish. In grad school I was always stressed about publication (which I ultimately did poorly at), which sapped a lot of my desire and energy to actually get into the code and make improvements. Since graduating and going into industry, and with kids, I've rarely felt like I have the time or energy after all of my other responsibilities to spend time on hobby projects. Some day I would like to get back into it, fix its issues, polish it up, document it properly, etc. Alas, maybe some day.