Comment by lynndotpy

2 days ago

One of these are not like the other. Python is perfectly serviceable as a shell, to the extent that one could largely replace bash with the Python REPL if they wanted.

9 comments

lynndotpy

tejtm 2 days ago

python you say?

Pray tell which one of the myriad is the true one?

And do not worry, no one would be rash enough to bring in external dependencies it is just too darn inconvenient.

I should probably drink my coffee before posting, be less grumpy.

lynndotpy 1 day ago
I think you are reading something into my post that isn't there. You surely do not believe I am arguing that Python is a shell language without tradeoffs.
Of the languages listed in GP, only Python and JavaScript are scripting languages with REPLs like Bash. Of those two, Python is far more serviceable for what one uses bash for, even in embedded applications (with MicroPython).
Perl, Awk, Ruby, and Lua are also scripting languages one can use in the course of OS scripting. (Your distro probably uses some combination of these, including Python.) Of these, at least Ruby can also be used as a shell.
> Pray tell which one of the myriad is the true one?
You've basically got it, that's just `which python`
I use Python for longer scripts where script maintainability is a priority and external libraries are unnecessary, and as a general shell when I also want my shell to be a calculator, especially when computing on a smartphone (with an appropriate pythonrc).
The key thing is that I already know Python and I find Python's warts more palatable than those on Bash.
- andrehacker 1 day ago
  
  I think the point was that Python, as a language and ecosystem, has experienced a number of breaking changes over the years. In practice, that means code written only a few years ago may no longer run without specific versions of Python and a collection of dependencies, many of which have since been replaced by newer, incompatible implementations.
  What I appreciate about the traditional shell languages is their remarkable stability. Shell scripts written in 2000, or even earlier, are often still able to run today with little or no modification. By contrast, Python applications frequently require recreating a historical runtime environment, including older language versions and dependencies, many of which have accumulated significant security vulnerabilities over time.
  Interestingly, apart from the various shell languages, Perl is probably one of the strongest alternatives in this regard. The Perl community has placed a high value on backward compatibility, allowing older code to continue functioning while the language itself remains actively maintained and up to date.
  
  1 reply →

amiga386 2 days ago

I'd be jumping out the top storey window after about 2 minutes of being required to use Python as a shell.

Python is a full-on programming language. Its REPL is a REPL for that language. Interacting with the OS and filesystem is a niche, tucked away in a corner of the language.

It has has none of the ergonomic affordances needed to be the user interface for interacting with files and processes.

Here are some simple commands:

    ls
    cd foo
    ls
    rm bar
    cd ../baz
    rm bar
    echo >readme.txt baz directory
    curl -s http://example.com >download

Let's try doing that with python:

    python
    >>> ls
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    NameError: name 'ls' is not defined
    >>> import system
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'system'
    >>> import os
    >>> os.dir.list()
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    AttributeError: module 'os' has no attribute 'dir'
    >>> help(os)

    >>> os.listdir()
    ['foo', 'bar', 'baz']
    >>> cd foo
      File "<stdin>", line 1
        cd foo
           ^
    SyntaxError: invalid syntax
    >>> chdir("foo")
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    NameError: name 'chdir' is not defined
    >>> os.chdir("foo")
    >>> os.listdir()
    ['bar']
    >>> os.delete("bar")
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    AttributeError: module 'os' has no attribute 'delete'
    >>> os.remove("bar")
    >>> os.chdir("../baz")
    >>> os.remove("bar")
    >>> f = open("readme.txt", "w")
    >>> f.write("baz directory")
    13
    >>> f.close()
    >>> import process
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'process'
    >>> import subprocess
    >>> subprocess.run("curl", "-s", "http://example.com/")
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
      File "/usr/lib/python3.9/subprocess.py", line 505, in run
        with Popen(*popenargs, **kwargs) as process:
      File "/usr/lib/python3.9/subprocess.py", line 778, in __init__
        raise TypeError("bufsize must be an integer")
    TypeError: bufsize must be an integer
    >>> subprocess.run(["curl", "-s", "http://example.com/"])
    ...
    CompletedProcess(args=['curl', '-s', 'http://example.com/'], returncode=0)
    >>> subprocess.run(args=["curl", "-s", "http://example.com/"], capture_output=True)
    CompletedProcess(args=['curl', '-s', 'http://example.com/'], returncode=0, stdout=b'...\n', stderr=b'')
    >>> p = subprocess.run(args=["curl", "-s", "http://example.com/"], capture_output=True)
    >>> fh = open("download", "w")
    >>> fh.write(p.stdout)
    Traceback (most recent call last):
      File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
    TypeError: write() argument must be str, not bytes
    >>> fh = open("download", "wb")
    >>> fh.write(p.stdout)
    559
    >>> fh.close()

lynndotpy 1 day ago
Yes, someone who has no idea how to use their shell and tries to get around by making arbitrary guesses will suffer. This is true for bash as well. It's no reason to kill yourself immediately.
- amiga386 1 day ago
  
  I put it to you that a "shell" that does not natively run the executable programs you type is a non-starter as a shell.
  I would be ready for the window if I had to type
  import subprocess; p = subprocess.run(args=["curl", "-s", "http://example.com/"], capture_output=True); fh = open("output", "wb"); fh.write(p.stdout); fh.close()
  rather than
  curl -s http://example.com/ >output
  There are certainly attempts to create a shell that's powered by Python and allows the Python language into it, but one could not "largely replace bash with the Python REPL". Only people who didn't want a shell in the first place would think that reasonable.
  
  2 replies →