Why and When to Use the Shell Instead of Ruby

Why and when to use the shell instead of Ruby

The shell's programming language is awful for all but one thing.

Pipelines.

The shell's programming language for pipelines totally rocks.

The |, & and ; operators, plus () and ``` form a tidy little language for describing pipelines.

a & b is concurrent

a ; b is sequential

a | b is a pipeline where a feeds b

That part of shell programming rocks.

Think of ( a & b & c ) | tee capture | analysis as the kind of thing that's hard to express in Python (or Ruby). You can do much of this with iterpipes, but not quite all of it.

Much of the rest you can live without, and use Python (or Ruby) and you'll be happier and more productive.

The biggest thing to watch out for is anything involving expr at the shell level. As soon as you start trying to do "calculations", you've crossed out of the shell's sweet spot and you should stop programming in the shell and rethink what you're doing.

What is the difference between this Ruby and shell code?

ProGNOMmers already pointed out your indexing error, but I'd like to note that translating into ruby as you've done has had almost no benefit. Your ruby code reads as ugly as bash and you're still shelling out twice to acquire /proc/stat. You can make this more readable, less error prone, and more efficient by using ruby as the high level language it is.

Here's a sample re-write. I've made a little method to turn the /proc/stat lines into a struct with meaningful names, so no more array indexing problems can crop in and it's always clear which timer value you're referencing. I've use File::readlines and Enumerable#grep to read the proc filesystem without having to shell out. I used printf formatting to get the percentile rounding effect you seemed to be looking for.

#!/usr/bin/env ruby

# http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man5/proc.5.html
CpuTimes = Struct.new :user, :nice, :system, :idle, :iowait, :irq,
                      :softirq, :steal, :guest, :guest_nice, :total

def get_cpu_times
  parts = File.readlines('/proc/stat').grep(/^cpu /).first.split
  times = parts[1..-1].map(&:to_i)
  CpuTimes[ *times ].tap { |r| r[:total] = times.reduce(:+) }
end

c0 = get_cpu_times
sleep 0.5
c1 = get_cpu_times

idle  = c1.idle - c0.idle
total = c1.total - c0.total
usage = total - idle
printf "CPU: %.1f%%", 100.0 * usage / total

How do I use Ruby for shell scripting?

By default, you already have access to Dir and File, which are pretty useful by themselves.

Dir['*.rb'] #basic globs
Dir['**/*.rb'] #** == any depth of directory, including current dir.
#=> array of relative names

File.expand_path('~/file.txt') #=> "/User/mat/file.txt"
File.dirname('dir/file.txt') #=> 'dir'
File.basename('dir/file.txt') #=> 'file.txt'
File.join('a', 'bunch', 'of', 'strings') #=> 'a/bunch/of/strings'

__FILE__ #=> the name of the current file

Also useful from the stdlib is FileUtils

require 'fileutils' #I know, no underscore is not ruby-like
include FileUtils
# Gives you access (without prepending by 'FileUtils.') to
cd(dir, options)
cd(dir, options) {|dir| .... }
pwd()
mkdir(dir, options)
mkdir(list, options)
mkdir_p(dir, options)
mkdir_p(list, options)
rmdir(dir, options)
rmdir(list, options)
ln(old, new, options)
ln(list, destdir, options)
ln_s(old, new, options)
ln_s(list, destdir, options)
ln_sf(src, dest, options)
cp(src, dest, options)
cp(list, dir, options)
cp_r(src, dest, options)
cp_r(list, dir, options)
mv(src, dest, options)
mv(list, dir, options)
rm(list, options)
rm_r(list, options)
rm_rf(list, options)
install(src, dest, mode = <src's>, options)
chmod(mode, list, options)
chmod_R(mode, list, options)
chown(user, group, list, options)
chown_R(user, group, list, options)
touch(list, options)

Which is pretty nice

Why are scripting languages (e.g. Perl, Python, and Ruby) not suitable as shell languages?

There are a couple of differences that I can think of; just thoughtstreaming here, in no particular order:

1. Python & Co. are designed to be good at scripting. Bash & Co. are designed to be only good at scripting, with absolutely no compromise. IOW: Python is designed to be good both at scripting and non-scripting, Bash cares only about scripting.

2. Bash & Co. are untyped, Python & Co. are strongly typed, which means that the number 123, the string 123 and the file 123 are quite different. They are, however, not statically typed, which means they need to have different literals for those, in order to keep them apart.
   
   Example:

                   | Ruby             | Bash    
   -----------------------------------------
   number          | 123              | 123
   string          | '123'            | 123
   regexp          | /123/            | 123
   file            | File.open('123') | 123
   file descriptor | IO.open('123')   | 123
   URI             | URI.parse('123') | 123
   command         | `123`            | 123
   

3. Python & Co. are designed to scale up to 10000, 100000, maybe even 1000000 line programs, Bash & Co. are designed to scale down to 10 character programs.

4. In Bash & Co., files, directories, file descriptors, processes are all first-class objects, in Python, only Python objects are first-class, if you want to manipulate files, directories etc., you have to wrap them in a Python object first.

5. Shell programming is basically dataflow programming. Nobody realizes that, not even the people who write shells, but it turns out that shells are quite good at that, and general-purpose languages not so much. In the general-purpose programming world, dataflow seems to be mostly viewed as a concurrency model, not so much as a programming paradigm.

I have the feeling that trying to address these points by bolting features or DSLs onto a general-purpose programming language doesn't work. At least, I have yet to see a convincing implementation of it. There is RuSH (Ruby shell), which tries to implement a shell in Ruby, there is rush, which is an internal DSL for shell programming in Ruby, there is Hotwire, which is a Python shell, but IMO none of those come even close to competing with Bash, Zsh, fish and friends.

Actually, IMHO, the best current shell is Microsoft PowerShell, which is very surprising considering that for several decades now, Microsoft has continually had the worst shells evar. I mean, COMMAND.COM? Really? (Unfortunately, they still have a crappy terminal. It's still the "command prompt" that has been around since, what? Windows 3.0?)

PowerShell was basically created by ignoring everything Microsoft has ever done (COMMAND.COM, CMD.EXE, VBScript, JScript) and instead starting from the Unix shell, then removing all backwards-compatibility cruft (like backticks for command substitution) and massaging it a bit to make it more Windows-friendly (like using the now unused backtick as an escape character instead of the backslash which is the path component separator character in Windows). After that, is when the magic happens.

They address problem 1 and 3 from above, by basically making the opposite choice compared to Python. Python cares about large programs first, scripting second. Bash cares only about scripting. PowerShell cares about scripting first, large programs second. A defining moment for me was watching a video of an interview with Jeffrey Snover (PowerShell's lead designer), when the interviewer asked him how big of a program one could write with PowerShell and Snover answered without missing a beat: "80 characters." At that moment I realized that this is finally a guy at Microsoft who "gets" shell programming (probably related to the fact that PowerShell was neither developed by Microsoft's programming language group (i.e. lambda-calculus math nerds) nor the OS group (kernel nerds) but rather the server group (i.e. sysadmins who actually use shells)), and that I should probably take a serious look at PowerShell.

Number 2 is solved by having arguments be statically typed. So, you can write just 123 and PowerShell knows whether it is a string or a number or a file, because the cmdlet (which is what shell commands are called in PowerShell) declares the types of its arguments to the shell. This has pretty deep ramifications: unlike Unix, where each command is responsible for parsing its own arguments (the shell basically passes the arguments as an array of strings), argument parsing in PowerShell is done by the shell. The cmdlets specify all their options and flags and arguments, as well as their types and names and documentation(!) to the shell, which then can perform argument parsing, tab completion, IntelliSense, inline documentation popups etc. in one centralized place. (This is not revolutionary, and the PowerShell designers acknowledge shells like the DIGITAL Command Language (DCL) and the IBM OS/400 Command Language (CL) as prior art. For anyone who has ever used an AS/400, this should sound familiar. In OS/400, you can write a shell command and if you don't know the syntax of certain arguments, you can simply leave them out and hit F4, which will bring a menu (similar to an HTML form) with labelled fields, dropdown, help texts etc. This is only possible because the OS knows about all the possible arguments and their types.) In the Unix shell, this information is often duplicated three times: in the argument parsing code in the command itself, in the bash-completion script for tab-completion and in the manpage.

Number 4 is solved by the fact that PowerShell operates on strongly typed objects, which includes stuff like files, processes, folders and so on.

Number 5 is particularly interesting, because PowerShell is the only shell I know of, where the people who wrote it were actually aware of the fact that shells are essentially dataflow engines and deliberately implemented it as a dataflow engine.

Another nice thing about PowerShell are the naming conventions: all cmdlets are named Action-Object and moreover, there are also standardized names for specific actions and specific objects. (Again, this should sound familar to OS/400 users.) For example, everything which is related to receiving some information is called Get-Foo. And everything operating on (sub-)objects is called Bar-ChildItem. So, the equivalent to ls is Get-ChildItem (although PowerShell also provides builtin aliases ls and dir – in fact, whenever it makes sense, they provide both Unix and CMD.EXE aliases as well as abbreviations (gci in this case)).

But the killer feature IMO is the strongly typed object pipelines. While PowerShell is derived from the Unix shell, there is one very important distinction: in Unix, all communication (both via pipes and redirections as well as via command arguments) is done with untyped, unstructured strings. In PowerShell, it's all strongly typed, structured objects. This is so incredibly powerful that I seriously wonder why noone else has thought of it. (Well, they have, but they never became popular.) In my shell scripts, I estimate that up to one third of the commands is only there to act as an adapter between two other commands that don't agree on a common textual format. Many of those adapters go away in PowerShell, because the cmdlets exchange structured objects instead of unstructured text. And if you look inside the commands, then they pretty much consist of three stages: parse the textual input into an internal object representation, manipulate the objects, convert them back into text. Again, the first and third stage basically go away, because the data already comes in as objects.

However, the designers have taken great care to preserve the dynamicity and flexibility of shell scripting through what they call an Adaptive Type System.

Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a PowerShell commercial. There are plenty of things that are not so great about PowerShell, although most of those have to do either with Windows or with the specific implementation, and not so much with the concepts. (E.g. the fact that it is implemented in .NET means that the very first time you start up the shell can take up to several seconds if the .NET framework is not already in the filesystem cache due to some other application that needs it. Considering that you often use the shell for well under a second, that is completely unacceptable.)

The most important point I want to make is that if you want to look at existing work in scripting languages and shells, you shouldn't stop at Unix and the Ruby/Python/Perl/PHP family. For example, Tcl was already mentioned. Rexx would be another scripting language. Emacs Lisp would be yet another. And in the shell realm there are some of the already mentioned mainframe/midrange shells such as the OS/400 command line and DCL. Also, Plan9's rc.

Ruby shell instead of Bash shell in Ubuntu?

You may look on this project: https://github.com/adamwiggins/rush

Benefits of using Ruby FileUtils instead of Bash commands?

Over and above the fact that you don't have to worry about ensuring your target platform has the specific tools you're using installed, and over and above the problem of doing proper quoting of shell oddities (especially problematical if you target both Windows and Unix-alikes -- Cygwin, GNUWin32, etc. notwithstanding), if you use Ruby's FileUtils you have the moderately-sized overhead of a Ruby function call while if you use external utilities you have the rather sizable overhead of firing up an external process each and every "call".

How do I specify the shell to use for a ruby system call?

Why not just specify the full path the the zip executable.

Ruby versions differ in Terminal & bash

This was not due to a $PATH problem. What I've learned is that RVM cannot be run unless you change your default login shell to either Bash or ZSH. Just firing up Terminal in Mac won't work. You make the global change to using Bash like this:

chsh -s /bin/bash

(swap /bin/bash for whatever your bash path is, find out using which bash).

The RVM website does say that bash>=3.2.25 is a prerequisite, but doesn't say what that is or how to check whether you have it. It also advises you to run rvm requirements to check what you need - and you can't run this unless you change your shell (all quite confusing for somebody new to this).

Thanks to the replies above for getting me there in the end.

See also: Bad: modifier error when installing RVM

---

Related Topics