From: Matthew PATTISON <mfp@...>
Date: 2000-10-23T23:36:32+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:5790] Re: Shells and Ruby

Hi,

I was wondering, maybe this has been discussed before and dismissed, how
hard would it be to write a Unix/Linux shell whose language was Ruby, or a
slight variant. Basically if performance wasn't an issue this could sit on top 
of another shell (eg. bash/sh), and wrap commands, and any variance needed in 
the syntax could be achieved via a preprocessor. I think some people
are/were doing this with Perl, although I don't know how serious an attempt
it is/was. I just think it would be very cool to have so much power in my
command line.  Please tell me if I'm being crazy.

Matt Pattison
     
* Hal E. Fulton (hal9000@hypermetrics.com) [001024 01:05]:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dat Nguyen <thucdat@hotmail.com>
> To: ruby-talk ML <ruby-talk@netlab.co.jp>
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2000 6:27 AM
> Subject: [ruby-talk:5787] Shells and Ruby
> 
> 
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Is there anything that shells (Korn, C, Bash, Bourne, etc.), awk, sed,
> etc.
> > can do but Ruby can't?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dat
> 
> Well, as far as I know, Ruby can do everything that ksh
> can, but perhaps not always as conveniently.
> 
> I investigated using method_missing to treat OS commands
> as (missing) methods and then pass them with their args
> to the OS. But Ruby methods have commas separating
> their parameters. So it's not as simple as that.
> 
> In short, it's easier to run an external program from ksh
> than from Ruby. That's my only thought so far.
> 
> Hal
> 
> 
>