https://docs.amber-lang.com/0.6.0-alpha/basic_syntax/importi...
it seems like automatic `--help` + named args is still not a thing? if it were, I'd be all over this
#!/usr/bin/tcc -run
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf("Hello from C!\n");
for (int i = 1; i < argc; ++i)
printf("argument %d: %s\n", i, argv[i]);
return 0;
}
$ chmod u+x cscript && ./cscript hello world
Hello from C!
argument 1: hello
argument 2: world
$ cat bscript.sh && echo "---" && ./bscript.sh
#!/usr/bin/bash
cd testdir/
ls
---
dummyfile
$ cat cscript && echo "---" && ./cscript
#!/usr/bin/tcc -run
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int main(void)
{
if (chdir("testdir") == -1) {
perror("chdir");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
execlp("ls", "ls", (char *)NULL);
perror("execlp");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
---
dummyfile
If you meant somehow changing the parent shell's directory an ordinary bash script doesn't do that either
Or did you mean change the directory of the calling shell (in which case, executable shell scripts written in Bash and friends can’t do that either).
Hmm...
2. Support Fish too. Having one language that can generate zsh (macOS default), Fish (power users default), and bash would be really nice!
Literally the worst of both worlds.
If your script is complex enough to need a higher level language you might as well just switch to python
Side note: the image of project founder cosplaying as Steve Jobs on front page had me dying.
Yes, Bash or any shell is a very complex and utterly environment dependent language to approach with all due care for security and compatibility, yet hence the lack of wrapper that may not even be aware of these crucial cases at all.
There are other communities where movement in the language came from outside tooling that built extensions on top of the language, such as Sass or TypeScript.
That said, this should just be a shell itself and not something that generates into other shell dialects. Otherwise, why not use Ruby or something like it that has actual expressive power?
I'm guessing the advantage here would be that the compiled "bytecode" (the resulting bash) can be distributed to systems that would then not need to have Amber installed. (And vs. a real binary from, e.g., Go/Rust/etc., it isn't tied to the platform, either.)
Vs. a Ruby script would require Ruby as a run-time dependency; Amber here is effectively a compile-time dependency.
Python 3 is available basically everywhere these days though, so I think there's still a lot of merit to just using a higher level language like you suggest. Even Ruby, while not available out of the box, is not exactly hard to get on most OSes.
It took my quite a while to get used to all the verbose method names, but it actually makes it pretty readable by default.
On the other hand, we're at a point for a binary language (or standard / framework) that one AI/LLM creates and another one validates.
What are we missing?
This is not something we're advocating, instead talking the reality from observing across the industry.
If you know of a language that is perfect for all our needs today and tomorrow, please guide us to it.
> What are we missing?
Major concerns would be i) trust in the tooling, ii) quality and accountability, iii) future investment in competent engineering.