buildr-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel Spiewak" <>
Subject Re: Interactive Shell Support
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:26 GMT
> In the second case, there's one shell task.  You tell it which runtime
> to use.  It's like throwing a toggle switch, the same way I run specs
> with Ruby and JRuby (have to test with both), I can run the same shell
> task with either one.
> I'm not convinced we need a lot of shell tasks. I can see the utility
> in being able to flip that switch, maybe I like using irb and you like
> using jirb, or I need to run with both for testing purposes. It's
> easier to flip the switch from the command line than edit the
> buildfile, so it's a nice feature to have.
> I guess what it boils down to is, I see myself using shell a lot, I
> don't see myself using a lot of shells.

This is the situation I envision.  I like to test out stuff as I develop (in
Java) using an interactive shell.  Most of the time I want to use Scala's
shell for that.   However, there are a lot of times when a dynamic type
system is helpful.  In those cases, I prefer to use jirb since I like the
syntax better than groovysh.  However, when developing in Scala, I will
almost *always* use scala's shell.  Likewise, when developing in Groovy, I
will almost always use groovy's shell.

I see the "lots of shells" as more useful under Java development, which
doesn't have a de facto standard shell.

I do see your point though that most users will probably stick with just one
(usually the language default).


  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message