zlacker

[return to "The Case for Nushell (2023)"]
1. BadBad+Wo[view] [source] 2026-01-07 17:48:36
>>raveni+(OP)
I have always struggled a bit with shell replacements. I use zsh but only because of oh-my-zsh. Apart from that I always thought of shell scripts as a necessary evil for interoperability. Today you can usually expect a linux system to have bash or at least sh. That is why I do shell scripting. Nushell is usally not preinstalled on a system and so I cannot expect it.

If I want to do real scripting/programming I use python or another dedicated programming language. I don't really know what the value of Nushell is for me. Maybe the plugin system is amazing but at the moment I miss nothing in my zsh.

◧◩
2. kalter+3U1[view] [source] 2026-01-08 00:42:23
>>BadBad+Wo
Python is good for general-purpose scripting, which does cover most of the tasks, but it’s still too bureaucratic when it comes to OS primitives. And when a small script at hand is tightly related to some OS thing anyway, it’s not a disservice to write it in shell.
◧◩◪
3. csmant+VL2[view] [source] 2026-01-08 08:45:00
>>kalter+3U1
Python's main distinction from a shell scripting language is that external program invocations are not first-class citizen. Also no easy ways to feed/read the subprocess's std io.
◧◩◪◨
4. wpm+QH3[view] [source] 2026-01-08 15:50:01
>>csmant+VL2
Coming from the shell, one of the most annoying things about Python is working with files. In the shell I can read and write to files on the filesystem with basically no friction and no extra infrastructure. Just a "cat" command or a <, >, or >>. The ease at which input and output can just get tossed around in the shell is the biggest thing I end up missing when I graduate up to any "real" language.

I remember when I first learned how to work with files in Python and thought "Damn, y'all live like this?"

[go to top]