Because I need the scripts and snippets I write for my repos to work for other developers, I'm going to write them to be bash compatible. That applies also to scripts and snippets written by others that I consume.
So if a shell is not bash syntax compatible, then it really has to offer some astonishingly useful features to offset my having to translate and map the scripts I need to run for it.
Murex does not interpret "$(cmd args)". So unfortunately, I cannot use it. I know it's not fair, and I know that is promoting a lock-in of what shells can do, but I need to get shit done I'm afraid.
For me to develop my scripts it would help alot if my interactive shell supports the syntax as well. I mean you are right of course, I CAN do that, but it then becomes a tradeoff question again of whether this non-compatible interactive shell has sufficient niceties.
Thanks for pointing it out. I've tried both as interactive shells for a few minutes. Murex seems to have a more minimalist approach that works well as a drop-in replacement.
However, I have trouble understanding some design decision, such as inventing redundant keywords. And I've spotted bugs in boths (e.g. ls --literal fails in nu, and the completion proposes it twice in Murex).
Maybe I’m just not the target audience, but looking at the front page, I don’t see what actual problems this solves. The claims sound nice, but without examples of what they mean in real world use, it’s not really compelling.
I may be wrong, but it gives me some powershell vibe. Since it seems to be targeted for macOS, I would assume it "solves" the lack of powershell equivalent on Mac ?
Powershell 7+ (a long while ago named core) is the version you should use on ALL platforms, including Windows. It's just the most recent version.
"Core" gives off a vibe that it is some limited thingy. It's not, it's full PS.
Because I need the scripts and snippets I write for my repos to work for other developers, I'm going to write them to be bash compatible. That applies also to scripts and snippets written by others that I consume.
So if a shell is not bash syntax compatible, then it really has to offer some astonishingly useful features to offset my having to translate and map the scripts I need to run for it.
Murex does not interpret "$(cmd args)". So unfortunately, I cannot use it. I know it's not fair, and I know that is promoting a lock-in of what shells can do, but I need to get shit done I'm afraid.
You should consider putting a shebang at the top of your scripts instead of leaving it to fate
I do this for all the scripts I write. That does cover one of the scenarios I covered above, which is valid.
Then there’s no reason you can’t use a different shell as your interactive shell, while running your scripts in bash.
For me to develop my scripts it would help alot if my interactive shell supports the syntax as well. I mean you are right of course, I CAN do that, but it then becomes a tradeoff question again of whether this non-compatible interactive shell has sufficient niceties.
I just write everything in fish and have an LLM translate it to bash. Freed up a couple brain cells for more useful things for sure.
Interesting. Looks similar to nushell [1] which also is data-encoding-aware.
[1] https://www.nushell.sh/
Thanks for pointing it out. I've tried both as interactive shells for a few minutes. Murex seems to have a more minimalist approach that works well as a drop-in replacement.
However, I have trouble understanding some design decision, such as inventing redundant keywords. And I've spotted bugs in boths (e.g. ls --literal fails in nu, and the completion proposes it twice in Murex).
Wasn't Murex some sort of backend software for financial institutions?
It's a spaceship from Warframe.
NB story spoilers. <https://wiki.warframe.com/w/Murex>
Still is. It's a French/Lebanese corp based in Paris/Beirut. I worked there for a few years early in my career.
Not just backend - it replaced the front end system I wrote for FX options (after I left the bank)
Maybe I’m just not the target audience, but looking at the front page, I don’t see what actual problems this solves. The claims sound nice, but without examples of what they mean in real world use, it’s not really compelling.
I may be wrong, but it gives me some powershell vibe. Since it seems to be targeted for macOS, I would assume it "solves" the lack of powershell equivalent on Mac ?
On Mac and Linux you can use powershell core:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/scripting/insta...
Powershell 7+ (a long while ago named core) is the version you should use on ALL platforms, including Windows. It's just the most recent version. "Core" gives off a vibe that it is some limited thingy. It's not, it's full PS.
Oh goody
It looks like PowerShell, or nushell that also looks like PowerShell.
Did you know you can install PowerShell on Linux too?
What happened to the convention that shell names end in sh? There are:
options available; surely we haven't exhausted them all?!Balderdash! Sorry to be standoffish, but you must distinguish between dictionaries. My distro has chosen to impoverish me with a nightmarish 315.
This is instead named for an animal with a shell
This looks interesting, I will consider switching if it's not sluggish like zsh was that one day I tried it.
Back in the 486 era? same here hehe ksh for life :p
A few of those ideas are also in https://www.nushell.sh/
[dead]