liljencrantz

I constructed a list of all words that end in 'sh', filtered out all the words already used for existing shells, sorted the remaining names by how cool they sound and picked the top entry.

I am the author of Crush, I designed Crush for myself: a very happy Unix user for 23 years and someone who can honestly say I love Unix and the Unix philosophy. As such, I feel that I can say with some authority that your first statement is wrong.

The rest of your command is subjective, but I find that being able to see e.g. what user has used a lot of CPU and has many processes running via the command `ps | group ^user cpu={sum ^cpu} proc_count={count}` is both useful and far harder to do in a traditional shell. YMMV.

I agree 100 %, shells should provide convenient, high level native access to all major RPC mechanisms.

There should simple be a grpc command that you use to instantiate a connection to a grpc server with, and that lets you do discovery, send commands, etc.

It's on my todo list for crush to do that for grpc and dbus.

I am the original author of both fish and Crush, and I honestly don't know in what way fish interacts with the OS in a way that Crush by virtue of it's design never could.

I know that Crush currently doesn't interact very well with external commands, but I don't see where that is an inherent restriction in the design rather than a missing feature.

The way Crush is trying to "fix" quoting is to do less of it.

String interpolation isn't done via quoting but via the format method on the string type, e.g. `"foo {} baz":format "bar"` generates the string "foo bar baz".

Similarly, to execute a command on a remote host, pass in a closure as an argument to the `remote:exec` command, like `remote:exec {1+1} "example.com"`, which will return the value 2.

I find that when quoting becomes a problem it usually means that the wrong solution has already been picked. If you're doing double quoting, you have already lost.