Re: backquotes, system, shell and ruby

John Carter wrote:
> Somebody suggested I use zsh instead of bash for my commandline, so I
> looked at it, looked at the syntax for tweaking the profile files, and
> said...
> "Yuck! Another badly designed syntax! Why can't I just use Ruby?"
> 
> And that got me thinking.
> 
> Consider backquotes.
> 
> a = `wc *.c`
> 
> What did that do? Same as open("|wc *.c").
> 
> It ran bash!
> 
> Yuck!
> 
> system( "tar -xvzf foo.tgz foo")
> 
> What did that do? It ran shell!
> 
> Why? Why does a scripting language like Ruby keep invoking an old and bad
> scripting language call shell?

A script language, if it wants to be portable, doesn't "blend" itself 
with unix shell programs.  Ruby has pipes, sockets and other perfectly 
normal programatic ways to communicate between applications.

> Because...
> 
>  a) Ruby doesn't have a good syntax for invoking and dealing with
>     processes and pipes between processes.

It has the IO::pipe method which is pretty standard.  You create a pair 
of pipes, then fork and exec whatever program you want to communicate with.

>  b) Ruby doesn't have a built in understanding of ENV['PATH']

Well, PATH isn't really for programming languages; it's a shell/os 
paradigm.  Programs *can* make use of it, if they choose to, but I don't 
see that as being a languages' responsibility.  It's there in the ENV 
hash; use it if you need it.

Anyway, it would be pretty simple to implement, and I wouldn't be 
surprised if there isn't support for finding programs with it buried 
somewhere in one of the libraries distributed with it.

>  c) Ruby doesn't have such a simple syntax for globbing (beyond
>     Dir['*.c'])
> 
>     Consider the "rename" facility that comes with perl these days.
>        For example, to rename all files matching "*.bak" to strip the exten-
>        sion, you might say
> 
>                rename 's/\.bak$//' *.bak
> 
>        To translate uppercase names to lower, you'd use
> 
>                rename 'y/A-Z/a-z/' *
> 
>    Ooh! Looky! Nice! Wouldn't it be nice to have the power of ruby
>    intertwingled with the commandline.

I would write:

	Dir["*.bak"].each{|f| File::rename(f, f.gsub(/\.bak$/, "")) }

and:

	Dir["*"].each{|f| File::rename(f, f.gsub(/[a-z]/){|s| s.upcase}) }

Wordy, but it should work just fine.

Anyway, Ruby isn't a shell, it's a programming language.

> Ruby does have Shell.rb, which takes us halfway there. (If it had
> decent docs...)
> 
> How hard would it be to extend the backtick syntax to be a pure ruby
> thing. ie. So proc_exec doesn't invoke bash, but invokes Shell.rb?
> 
> Hmm. Could we even do this entirely in UserLand? ie. Couldn't we
> override proc_exec and replace it with ruby code that parses the
> string, handles the redirects, variable interpolation quoting and
> forks, then just directly execs the program without ever touching sh?

I personally don't think it's Ruby's job to be more like a shell. 
Shells do that very well already.  Besides, no matter how much you 
modified Ruby to make it more shell-like, you are always going to find 
things it won't do as well as a shell could, so you will drop out and 
ask the shell to do it.

Using a programming language, as opposed to a shell, means that some 
things are easier to do, and some things are harder.  But I don't think 
changing Ruby to make a specific group of tasks easier, when shells 
already do those tasks very well, is the answer.

	Sean O'Dell