I don't know, I often miss the pipe operator in python, which makes certain things much easier. I once created a small class to simulate this a bit, it allows you to use + as pipe operator. Wouldn't use it in production though, was just fun to write it. https://pastebin.com/eQacwLj7

Why not use | as the pipe operator? Just use __or__ instead of __add__

I have done something similar too once in a shell-like Python CLI I worked on. Can also use __ror__ to be able to pass primitives into your commands like `[1, 2, 3] | SumCmd() | PrintCmd()`

I do agree that typing something like that, especially when working in a shell, is much nicer than having to go back and forth all the time to type `print(sum([1,2,3]))`

Here it is mentioned in a talk about Python Aesthetics by Brandon Rhodes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-kB2o8sd5c&t=8m24s

Oh that is possible? I am not that deep into python honestly. Looks much neater to use |.

Plumbum (above) matches this need in Python. It overloads | to make pipes! It makes it relatively trivial to express shell idioms in Python.

One thing I like Ruby for over Python is the function chaining, which is quite shell-pipe-ish.

I'll stick to Python, but Ruby is worth a look.

Doesn’t python have channels? The pipe is essentially a channel combined with a close message (a null object I guess) Otherwise you can do something similar with iterators and function composition. I guess the syntax isn’t quite as easy to read if you’re not used to function composition?(which seems surprisingly difficult for some beginners)

Shell pipes are fairly low overhead because they are an os primitive.

I really wouldn’t call pipes “low overhead.”

Tried python-sh?

This is exactly my rule of thumb for this as well, and it's funny that that's exactly the feature that tells me to start using Python. Yes, there are arrays in Bash, but every time I start to look up how to write them (again), I think, "Ennnhhhhh...maybe not" and rewrite the darn thing in Python.