Slightly odd suggestion: package it up as both a Python and an NPM module - both just thin wrappers around the combined binary - and then people within those ecosystems will be able to run:
uvx ut md5 ...
npx ut md5 ...
I've seen a few tools do things like this recently, it's a pretty interesting pattern. I believe there's tooling in the Python/Rust world that makes compiling the different binary wheels relatively easy using GitHub Actions.
If you know you will use it often, uv has `uv tool install ...`. So, after the first `uv tool install ut` you can just run `ut md5 ...` or whatever. Don't need to keep using uvx.
uv also has a couple commands I throw in a systemd unit[1] to keep these tools updated:
uv self update
uv tool upgrade --all
Interesting perspective. I mean the issue exists with any ecosystem. See nix who has to wrap down to the lib level everything under the sun to make their package system usable for all kinds of use cases. But they need to do this because of the deterministic nature of the system. Brew on the other hand discouraged packaging tools that are available from other package managers. Don’t know if this is still the case. I feel a bit uncertain about this. It would mean that a tool should not only strive to be included in all major repositories of Linux distributions along with winget, brew and Mac ports etc (which is a tough ask). Now they should also publish to npm, pypy, ruby gems etc as well? I feel something is taking a wrong turn here.
cargo-dist will get you the npm one for free. They've got pypi support planned as well but don't have it yet, though they can also generate standard curl | sh installers and all too.
This looks cool, thanks!
Very neat.
Although philosophically I prefer the unix approach of "do one thing and do it well", I really admire this tool. I think it might be the fact that the one thing this does well is curating a set of functions for a particular profile of developer. My story is someone doing web focused full stack development?
It might be worth doing a survey of your users to see what they use ut for and what areas you should focus on next.
I think for packaging it's okay to "have" lots of things that individually "do" one thing.
The important part is that the user controls the entry points. It's more Unixy to allow someone to decode audio from one pipe to another than to only allow them to play a file to a speaker.
Consider that Debian "does" lots of things because it has a kernel, hardware abstractions, a userland, a package manager, and often a GUI and web browser. But it also "does" none of those because it's just a convenient and useful wrapper to publish all the other tools, which you can still call upon individually
I can understand why people would find `ut` convenient. That said, I would caution against trying to include too much functionality. What is too much? I don't have a clear idea on this yet.
But I would probably argue that including HTTP functionality is going too far. Why? Because there are already amazing tools dedicated to this already. On the client side, see `xh` [1]. On the server side, see `miniserve` [2]. Both have approximately 7K stars on GitHub.
It seems wiser to let specialized projects focus on a particular functional area; this is better for users and less work for maintainers.
Would be cool if this also had a `retry` sub-command, for running any commands with an exponential backoff retry logic. Similar to these Rust tools:
On what basis are new features included?
Has the creator thought about the definition of "done"? Will it grow indefinitely like a katamari ball?
How about uuidv7? That’s catching on, as it’s got improved sortability / clustering behavior in DBs
is this stuff not pretty easy to do with python?
``` python -c "import base64; print(base64.b64encode('$INPUT_STRING'.encode('utf-8')).decode('utf-8'))" ```
I love typing python commands that are 10x longer than a shorthand.
Yes it's easy to set up an alias or shell command or whatever, but that's besides the point :p
You don't even have to go that far, `base64` is a coreutil (https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/ebfd80083b4fe4ae...).
The point of ut is not to replace or invent new tooling. It is meant to be a set of tools that are simple, self exploratory and work out of the box with sane defaults. So, essentially, something that you don't have to remember syntax for or go through help/man pages everytime you want to use it.
uutils/coreutils has a `base64` in Rust which just gained better performance due to the base64-simd crate for SIMD: https://github.com/uutils/coreutils/pull/8578
Note that uutils does not work if the file does not fit into memory.
With GNU coreutils:
$ base64 /dev/zero | head -c 1 | wc -c
1
If you can remember all of that off the top of your head and find it ergonomic to type out, then sure. But much like how I prefer someone else to do my content syncing as an ergonomic appliance rather than using FTP + curlftpfs + a VCS [1], I quite like this idea of a focused toolbox (written in a language that compiles to native code) and welcome it rather than having to store these massive snippets in my head (or write shell wrappers for them).
You can send a heredoc into as in a single line of shell, too.
Why is everything in the same binary? Why not multiple binaries, one for each function? That way people can install only the ones they need, a-la Unix tools: do only one thing and do it well.
I also have the exact same tools but written in Go. Rust would be a nice upgrade (lower footprint) but to keep them all in the same binary is a bit silly.
The single binary thing reminds me of BusyBox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox
Sometimes it can be quite convenient to grab a single binary that does a whole bunch of useful stuff in one package.
Also, lots of the ut functions already exist as decades old unix tools.
Those tools either don't ship with, or exist in wildly different forms on Windows. It's particularly bad for curl, which might be the real curl.se curl or Microsoft's confusingly-named Powershell alias.
I could definitely see using this in a cross-platform build or installation environment.
Windows and *nix systems are often used for very different things so I don't understand why there would be need for some kind of universal superbinary. And thanks to WSL you can already get GNU coretools running in Windows anyways.
I lead a large-ish open source software project. We have developers that need to build on Linux, macOS, and Windows. It's useful to be able to get everyone bootstrapped with as few steps as possible and with as few dependencies as possible. For our uses CMake works well as a universal superbinary, but I'm always on the lookout for tools that can reduce developer friction.
Probably for the same reasons that uutils/coreutils uses a single binary. Specifically:
- it reduces the total install size, since common code, including the standard library, is only included once, rather than copied for each executable
- it makes installation easier on some platforms, since you just have to install a single executable, instead of a bunch of executables
To me the biggest upside would be terminal completion and discovery via help text. Sure you can always bounce to a search engine and bounce back, but I can imagine cases where you want a toolkit in front of you that you know how to use when your focus is not on memorizing commands.
This could be great for students without sysadmins needing to lodge complaints.
Amusingly, if you look historically, it's also a traditional approach to reduce total binary size - a bunch of small utilities were all Sim links to a single binary, which conditioned on argv[0] to figure out what to do.
In The Old Days, it was hard links, no symlinks.
Eek, you're right. Also ugh, I should stop talking to my phone, just noticed "Sim links". sigh.
I don't think it's that silly. BusyBox packages a bunch of utilities in a single binary. It amortizes fixed costs: a single binary takes less space than 30 binaries that each do one tiny thing.
These are small bits of code, and the functionality is interrelated. The entire thing feels like a calculator, or awk, and seems reasonable to put in one binary.
The Unix philosophy doesn't actually say anything about whether different tools should live in the same binary. It's about having orthogonal bits of functionality and using text as the universal interface. BusyBox is just as Unix as having all the tools be different binaries.