News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Show HN: Murex – non-Posix shell designed for productivity by burlesona on Wednesday January 15, 2020 @11:42AM (#22055727)
Looks very cool. Has some of the same ideas as Nushell. Seems like a lot of these “better shells” are coming out lately, I wonder why that’s in vogue at the moment?
Re:Show HN: Murex – non-Posix shell designed for productivity by em-bee on Friday January 17, 2020 @07:58AM (#22074192)
possibly the younger generation of developers is less dogmatic about POSIX and 'portability'.

another theory is that people realized that you can use a different shell for interactive use than for scripting.

the popularity of python, perl and other languages for scripting may have helped with that.

i am looking forward to see more. fish only scratched the surface.

Re:Show HN: Murex – non-Posix shell designed for productivity by hnlmorg on Sunday January 19, 2020 @08:29AM (#22091323)
I don't agree with this. Or at least it's not applicable for me. I've been managing UNIX and Linux systems for around 2 decades so sadly I'm now far too old to be included as part of the younger generation any more :(

murex came about more by accident than intention. It was a personal project to "solve" a real world problem I was having at work but it kind of morphed into a shell. Even the shell aspect was very different in the beginning to what it is now. In fact almost every aspect of the shell has changed in the last 3 years.

The project is older than the Github repo because it was a private project hosted on a personal git server for the early stages of its life and I squashed the commits when uploading to Github to hide the early code (read: "mistakes") but once the project did start morphing into a shell the intention was always to make scripting a first class citizen because I specifically didn't want to use a different shell for interactive use than scripting. In fact if anything, I wanted to bring scripting paradigms to the REPL shell but without creating a command line that was too verbose for everyday use.

Re:Show HN: Murex – non-Posix shell designed for productivity by em-bee on Wednesday January 22, 2020 @11:17AM (#22118819)
i see your 2 decades and i raise you 3 :-)

for a while i have been dreaming of the idea of having a real programming language for use on the commandline and i always get stuck at the verbosity of the syntax.

i didn't want to invent a new language however but possibly reuse an existing one. just that none of the languages i came across really fit.

for starters it would have to be a language that uses spaces to separate arguments, like lisp, smalltalk, red, forth and a few others. but there are more potential requirements that most languages don't really support, like being able to specify string values without quotes...

Re:Show HN: Murex – non-Posix shell designed for productivity by hnlmorg on Thursday January 23, 2020 @03:34PM (#22131662)
I'm with you on that one. The original murex syntax was very Javascript inspired. In fact it was even object oriented and originally called "jsh". The ironic thing is I hate JS as a language - though that's less about the syntax and more about other specific grips.

Anyhow, first I made quoting strings optional, because mandatory quotes were fucking annoying for regular use. Then the parentheses disappeared. Then the object orientated model was dropped.

Murex is a very different language now to what it was when it started; though there are still some legacy features in there which are throwbacks to early designed (eg the default data-type is called "generic", which made sense when it was OO as generic was meant to handle any content but makes less sense now that it's a first party type in its own right).

There's definitely a lot wrong with murex though. It's a long way off being a proper language. But for shell work, it has been my default daily shell for a few years now. I also use it for writing any shell scripts albeit just stuff for personal use.

From what you've posted, I'd be very interested if you ever designed a shell language. It sounds like you and I have similar desires for what the next iteration of UNIX shells should look like.