Stories with Tag scripts

• Matt's Script Archive (1995)

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-02 20:06:41

  Verbose tl;dr

  Matt's Script Archive, established in 1995, is a vast online repository of movie and television scripts, transcripts, and unproduced screenplays. It serves as a free resource for aspiring writers, film enthusiasts, and anyone interested in studying the art of screenwriting. The site features a simple, searchable interface allowing users to browse by title, genre, or writer. While claiming no official affiliations with the studios or writers, the archive offers a significant collection, ranging from classic films to more recent releases and television series.

  In the year 1995, a web developer named Matt, seemingly driven by a passion for cinema and the burgeoning possibilities of the nascent internet, established an online repository known as "Matt's Script Archive." This digital archive functioned as a centralized hub for screenplays, offering a readily accessible collection for fellow film enthusiasts, aspiring screenwriters, and curious individuals alike. The website, boasting a stark yet functional design characteristic of the mid-1990s web, presented a meticulously organized catalog of movie scripts. These scripts, spanning a diverse range of genres and eras, from classic Hollywood productions to contemporary independent films, were offered freely for personal, non-commercial use. The website interface allowed users to navigate through this vast library by browsing alphabetically or searching for specific titles. Each script entry, typically presented as a plain text file, offered a raw, unadulterated glimpse into the creative process behind the films. This provided a valuable resource for studying narrative structure, dialogue, and the art of screenwriting. While devoid of the multimedia richness and interactive features that characterize modern websites, "Matt's Script Archive" served as a pioneering example of online content curation and a testament to the power of the early internet to democratize access to information. It represented a significant contribution to the online film community, providing a valuable and free educational resource for anyone interested in the art and craft of filmmaking. This early digital archive stands as a precursor to the vast and sophisticated online film resources available today, demonstrating the enduring appeal of film and the transformative impact of the internet on access to cultural materials.

  • scripts
  • screenplays
  • Movies
  • Film
  • Archive
  • 1995
  • Matt's Script Archive
  • website
  • online resource
  • html

  Summary of Comments ( 28 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43234471

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss Matt's Script Archive, a relic of the early web. Several commenters reminisce about using the site in the 90s, highlighting its importance as a resource for learning CGI scripting and early web development. Some note the simplicity and educational value of the scripts, contrasting them with the complexity of modern web development. Others express a sense of nostalgia for the early internet and the community spirit it fostered. A few commenters also discuss the technical details of the scripts, including the languages used and their limitations. The overall sentiment is one of appreciation for the archive as a historical artifact and a testament to the ingenuity of early web developers.

  The Hacker News post titled "Matt's Script Archive (1995)" links to a web archive of a personal script collection from the mid-90s. The comments section contains a mixture of nostalgia, technical observations, and reflections on the early internet.

  Several commenters reminisce about the era of personal homepages and the prevalence of CGI scripts. They recall the excitement of discovering and using these readily available scripts for various purposes, such as guestbooks, counters, and other interactive elements. The simplicity and accessibility of the code is a recurring theme, with some noting the educational value of being able to easily inspect and modify the scripts. This ease of use is contrasted with the complexity of modern web development.

  One commenter specifically mentions the prevalence of Perl in that era and how the linked archive serves as a time capsule of that language's dominance in web scripting. They also point out the relative lack of concern for security at the time, reflecting the less malicious environment of the early internet.

  Another user discusses the impact of evolving web technologies on the longevity of online resources. They express concern that modern web frameworks may create content that is less likely to be accessible in the future, unlike these simpler scripts that are still relatively easy to understand and run today.

  There's also a technical discussion about the inclusion of a "robots.txt" file in the archive, which, despite being a standard today, was a relatively new concept at the time. This leads to speculation about its effectiveness and adoption in the early days of search engines.

  A few commenters express appreciation for the preservation of these historical web artifacts, viewing the archive as a valuable glimpse into the past. They acknowledge the importance of such archives in documenting the evolution of the web and its underlying technologies.

  Finally, there's a brief exchange about the potential security vulnerabilities of such scripts if run on a modern server, highlighting the changing security landscape of the internet.

  Overall, the comments reflect a sense of nostalgia for the early web and its DIY ethos. They appreciate the simplicity and accessibility of the scripts, recognizing them as a significant part of internet history. The comments also touch upon broader themes of web evolution, technological obsolescence, and the importance of digital preservation.

• Project Scripts

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-23 23:11:13

  Verbose tl;dr

  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.

  • project management
  • Automation
  • scripts
  • bash
  • shell scripting
  • productivity
  • developer tools
  • Command Line
  • workflow
  • Software Development

  Summary of Comments ( 0 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43154138

  Verbose tl;dr

  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 .bin within a project can mitigate this issue. This comment sparks further discussion about the best practices for organizing project scripts. Some suggest using a dedicated scripts directory, while others mention leveraging tools like direnv to 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 like Taskfile and Makefile, 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 out doit as 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.

• Using uv as your shebang line

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-28 17:35:05

  Verbose tl;dr

  The blog post explores using #!/usr/bin/env uv as a shebang line to execute PHP scripts with the uv runner, offering a performance boost compared to traditional PHP execution methods like php-fpm. uv leverages libuv for asynchronous operations, making it particularly advantageous for I/O-bound tasks. The author demonstrates this by creating a simple "Hello, world!" script and showcasing the performance difference using wrk. The post concludes that while setting up uv might require some initial effort, the potential performance gains, especially in asynchronous contexts, make it a compelling alternative for running PHP scripts.

  This blog post by Anthony Ferrara explores the concept of using #!/usr/bin/env uv as the shebang line for PHP scripts, leveraging the uv binary provided by the ext-uv PHP extension. The primary motivation is to harness the asynchronous capabilities of libuv, the underlying library, to achieve non-blocking operations and potentially enhance performance in specific scenarios.

  The author begins by highlighting the traditional PHP execution model, which is synchronous and blocking. Each request is handled sequentially, waiting for operations like file I/O or network requests to complete before proceeding. This can lead to performance bottlenecks, especially in I/O-bound applications.

  Introducing the uv binary offers an alternative execution pathway. By using uv as the shebang, the PHP script effectively runs within the libuv event loop. This allows for asynchronous operations, enabling the script to continue processing other tasks while waiting for I/O operations to finish, instead of blocking the entire execution flow.

  The post then delves into the practicalities of using this approach. It explains that the uv binary intercepts the execution and initializes the libuv event loop. The PHP code, specifically designed for this asynchronous environment, interacts with the event loop through functions provided by the ext-uv extension. These functions allow registering callbacks and handling events in a non-blocking manner.

  The author provides a simple example demonstrating the use of uv for asynchronous file reading. The code snippet illustrates how to initiate a file read operation and register a callback function to be executed when the reading is complete. This callback then processes the read data. The crucial difference from traditional file reading is that the script does not halt while waiting for the file read to finish; instead, the event loop handles the asynchronous operation in the background.

  Furthermore, the post acknowledges that using uv as the shebang is not a universal solution for all PHP projects. It's specifically targeted at applications that can benefit from asynchronous operations, primarily I/O-bound tasks. For CPU-bound workloads, the advantages might be less pronounced.

  Finally, the author touches upon the potential drawbacks and considerations of this approach, mentioning the need for careful coding practices to handle asynchronous logic and the importance of understanding the event loop model. While the uv shebang offers a compelling pathway to leverage asynchronous capabilities in PHP, it requires a shift in development paradigms and a thorough understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

  • shebang
  • uv
  • php
  • executable
  • scripts
  • Command Line
  • web server
  • performance
  • unix
  • Linux

  Summary of Comments ( 94 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42855258

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed the practicality and security implications of using uv as a shebang line. Some questioned the benefit given the small size savings compared to a full path, while others highlighted potential portability issues and the risk of uv not being installed on target systems. A compelling argument against this practice centered on security, with commenters noting the danger of path manipulation if uv isn't found and the shell falls back to searching the current directory. One commenter suggested using env to locate usr/bin/env reliably, proposing #!/usr/bin/env uv as a safer, though slightly larger, alternative. The overall sentiment leaned towards avoiding this shortcut due to the potential downsides outweighing the minimal space saved.

  The Hacker News post "Using uv as your shebang line" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42855258) has a modest number of comments discussing the practicality and implications of using the uv command-line utility, provided by the libuv library, as a shebang interpreter for executing JavaScript files directly.

  Several commenters express skepticism and raise concerns about portability. One commenter points out that relying on uv as a shebang interpreter tightly couples the script to the presence and specific version of libuv on the target system, making it less portable than using a more standard shebang like #!/usr/bin/env node. They argue that this approach introduces an unnecessary dependency and restricts the script's usability across different environments.

  Another commenter echoes this sentiment, suggesting that while it might be convenient for personal scripts or very controlled environments, using uv as a shebang would not be suitable for distributing scripts intended for wider use. They highlight that assuming the availability of uv is not a reasonable expectation in most general-purpose computing environments.

  A different line of discussion emerges regarding the performance implications. One commenter questions whether using uv directly offers any significant performance advantage over using node. They suggest that any perceived performance gains might be negligible and not worth the trade-off in portability.

  One user raises a point about the potential for confusion when using uv as a shebang, as it might not be immediately clear to others what interpreter is being invoked. They suggest that clarity and maintainability are often more valuable than marginal performance improvements, especially in collaborative projects.

  Another commenter offers a more nuanced perspective, acknowledging the portability concerns but also suggesting a potential use case for this approach. They propose that using uv as a shebang could be beneficial in situations where a project already heavily relies on libuv and the scripts are intended for internal use within that specific environment. In such cases, the dependency is already present, and the streamlined execution provided by the uv shebang might offer some advantages.

  Finally, one commenter raises the possibility of using a small shell script as an intermediary to locate and execute the correct interpreter, providing a more robust and portable solution. This approach would address the portability concerns while still allowing for the use of uv when available. They offer a concrete example of such a script.

  Overall, the comments generally lean towards caution regarding the widespread use of uv as a shebang interpreter due to portability concerns. However, they also acknowledge niche scenarios where this approach might offer some benefits, primarily in tightly controlled environments where the libuv dependency is already guaranteed.