Paul Samuels advocates for using simple, project-specific shell scripts instead of complex build systems or task runners for small to medium-sized projects. He argues that shell scripts offer better transparency, debuggability, and control, while reducing cognitive overhead. They facilitate easier understanding of project dependencies and build processes, which ultimately contributes to better maintainability, especially for solo developers or small teams. By leveraging the shell's built-in features and readily available Unix tools, project scripts provide a lightweight yet powerful approach to managing common development tasks.
This blog post by Paul Samuels, titled "Project Scripts," delves into the author's approach to streamlining project setup and management through the strategic use of shell scripts. Samuels argues against relying solely on complex, overarching build systems or IDE project configurations, proposing instead a collection of small, focused scripts dedicated to individual tasks within a project's lifecycle. These scripts, stored in a dedicated "scripts" directory within the project's root, cover a wide range of functionalities tailored to the specific needs of each project.
The author emphasizes the benefits of this approach, including improved transparency and understanding of the project's workings, as the scripts clearly expose the individual steps involved in building, testing, deploying, and maintaining the project. This clarity, he suggests, is often obscured by more opaque, integrated build systems. Furthermore, the granular nature of these scripts allows for greater flexibility and adaptability, enabling developers to easily modify or extend specific functionalities without grappling with the complexities of a monolithic build system.
The blog post provides concrete examples of typical scripts included in a project, such as a "build" script for compiling the project, a "test" script for running unit tests, a "deploy" script for automating deployment procedures, and a "clean" script for removing intermediate build artifacts. Samuels also mentions scripts for more specialized tasks, like setting up a development environment or generating documentation, further highlighting the adaptability of this method.
He also touches upon the practical advantages of using shell scripts, citing their ubiquitous availability in Unix-like environments and their ease of use for automating common tasks. He further emphasizes the educational value of this approach, as writing and maintaining these scripts fosters a deeper understanding of the project's inner workings and encourages developers to learn more about shell scripting. The post concludes by advocating for this method as a powerful yet simple way to improve developer productivity and maintainability, encouraging readers to adopt this practice in their own projects. The overall tone suggests that this is a personal preference and not a strict prescription, but rather a suggestion based on the author's positive experiences.
Summary of Comments ( 0 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43154138
Hacker News users generally praised the simplicity and practicality of "Project Scripts." Several commenters appreciated the lightweight nature of the approach compared to more complex build systems or dedicated project management tools, highlighting the benefit of reduced cognitive overhead. Some suggested potential improvements like incorporating direnv or using a Makefile for more complex projects. A few users expressed skepticism, arguing that the proposed "Project Scripts" offered little beyond basic shell scripting and questioned the need for a dedicated term. Others found the idea valuable for its focus on explicitness and ease of sharing project setup within a team. The discussion also touched on related tools like Taskfile and justfile, comparing their features and complexity to the author's approach.
The Hacker News post "Project Scripts" discussing the blog post by Paul Samuels about using project-local scripts has generated a fair amount of discussion, with several commenters sharing their perspectives and experiences on the topic.
Several commenters agree with the author's premise that project-local scripts are a valuable tool. One commenter highlights the benefit of avoiding global pollution and potential conflicts with other projects. They point out how this approach simplifies dependency management and keeps things organized. Another commenter emphasizes the convenience of having scripts tailored to a specific project readily available, especially when onboarding new team members or returning to a project after a break. This sentiment is echoed by another user who mentions the ease of use and the reduced mental overhead compared to using tools like
make.However, not all commenters fully embrace the idea. One raises a counterpoint about discoverability. They argue that while project-local scripts are useful, they can be harder to find compared to a centralized location, particularly for new contributors to a project. They suggest that a standardized directory like
.binwithin a project can mitigate this issue. This comment sparks further discussion about the best practices for organizing project scripts. Some suggest using a dedicatedscriptsdirectory, while others mention leveraging tools likedirenvto automatically load project-specific environments and scripts.The discussion also delves into alternative approaches. One commenter mentions using a
justfile, praising its simplicity and ease of use for defining project tasks. Another user suggests exploring tools likeTaskfileandMakefile, arguing that while they might seem more complex initially, they offer greater flexibility and power for managing complex projects. This leads to a brief comparison of different task runners and build tools, with commenters weighing in on their preferred choices. One commenter specifically calls outdoitas a powerful alternative for Python projects, emphasizing its extensibility and features like automatic dependency tracking.Another commenter advocates for shell functions as a simpler alternative for smaller projects, suggesting that they can offer similar benefits without the need for additional tooling. This comment generates a brief discussion about the trade-offs between simplicity and maintainability, with some users arguing that dedicated scripts offer better long-term maintainability for larger projects.
Finally, a few commenters discuss the benefits of using a consistent shebang line, regardless of whether scripts are project-local or global. They point out that this can prevent issues related to interpreter compatibility and ensure that scripts execute reliably across different environments.