In this superuser question I was advised that it is better to execute scripts written in an interpretted language (php, python, etc) by explicitly executing the interpretter and providing the script as an argument, like:
> php script.php
rather than adding a line to the script to tell the OS to execute it, like:
#!/usr/bin/php
<?php
echo "hello world";
?>
Why is this true? My intuition tells me that it's safer, in case the script is moved to a system in which the interpreter's executable is located at a different path, but is that the only reason?
Portability is enhanced if you use this idiom:
#!/usr/bin/env php
but it has drawbacks of its own; see a longer discussion at http://sites.google.com/site/frankpzh/knowledge-library/shebang
Different paths would be the primary reason, especially when binaries start getting stored in x64-denoted paths or installed in /usr/local/bin/php.
Related
I am trying to understand perl6 and its changes than perl5. I come to know that perl 6 is compiled languages but I am not getting how? It is not generating any intermediate code (directly executable or jvm bytecode)?
I am not getting any option to do the same. How to do it?
Currently I am able to directly execute my code.
$ perl6-j hello.p6
Hello world
I am following https://github.com/rakudo/rakudo
You can use --target= on the perl6 command line to see a human readable trace of each stage of the compiler. On JVM if you wish to have a "compiled" bytecode output you can use --target=jar and then take a look inside there. But ultimately Perl 6 compiles on the fly unless asked otherwise. It leaves a bytecode representation cached in library path directories of each "CompUnit", so that the compile step is faster next time. This can be seen in .precomp directories. The precomp cache is very tricky to use by hand due to how Perl 6 hashes and indexes all comp units. This is so libraries with the same name but different version and author can sit side by side. On MoarVM there is no equivalent to --target=jar but in the .precomp directory you can see the raw bytecode files that can be directly executed by moar if you link the runtime setting.
Updating the answer for this as this is now supported.
To generate the bytecode for a perl6 program, run perl6 --target=<backend> --output=foo foo.pl6. You can use mbc, jvm, or js as your target backend. The bytecode will be written to the file foo.
Writing bytecode to a file both for modules and programs is not official supported yet. Hence the lack of documentation for --target.
I am interested in any IDE (or even a script) that is capable of refactoring Go source code for variable renaming. For example in Eclipse for Java, one can select a variable, an object or a class, then to rename it and it gets automatically renamed in all the files in the project. This feature is very useful if automatic string replacement may cause substring collisions.
If you're interested in a script, use gofmt with -r flag. Like this:
gofmt -w -r 'OldFoo -> Foo' foopackage
From the docs:
Without an explicit path, it processes the standard input. Given a file, it operates on that file; given a directory, it operates on all .go files in that directory, recursively. (Files starting with a period are ignored.) By default, gofmt prints the reformatted sources to standard output.
EDIT: Today there are better tools for that: gorename for renaming and eg for general refactoring.
The gorename tool performs precise type-safe renaming of identifiers in Go source code.
The various clang-based completion tools (like youcompleteme) need to be told what compiler flags a source is to be compiled with. It would be nice if the compiler options to be used could be extracted from the project files. What would be easiest way to extract the flags (automatically, not manually) from either the cmake projects or the generated result in make or ninja format?
See http://clang.llvm.org/docs/LibTooling.html
Set CMAKE_EXPORT_COMPILE_COMMANDS=ON.
Ninja is actually able to print out commands to build all or specific target. And it does it extremely fast. As in on my machine in 0.033s for 1122 commands. It can print them either as shell commands or as compilation database and ycm has utility to use the compilation database.
It is important to note that the compdb ninja tool requires a rule name as argument. That does not seem to be mentioned in documentation.
The easiest is usually to do something in essence of CC=echo CXX=echo make and extract the arguments from it.
There's already an implementation of this in the clang_complete plugin, see the cc_args.py script at https://github.com/Rip-Rip/clang_complete/blob/master/bin/cc_args.py and documented in https://github.com/Rip-Rip/clang_complete/blob/master/doc/clang_complete.txt for more informations. If I'm not mistaken YCM can read .clang_complete files.
For example in clang_complete you run it like make CC='~/.vim/bin/cc_args.py gcc' CXX='~/.vim/bin/cc_args.py g++' -B
I'd not be surprised if YCM had a similar mechanism already available out of the box.
[EDIT] Yes it has, see https://github.com/Valloric/YouCompleteMe#c-family-semantic-completion-engine-usage and the "Clang's CompilationDatabase" support from the YCM documentation. Basically, either have make generate a file with the compilation flags for YCM to use or have clang generate a compilation database and have YCM use that.
I’ve spent some time researching this and though I’ve found some relevant info,
Here’s what I’ve found:
SO question: “What is the clojure equivalent of the Python idiom if __name__ == '__main__'?”
Some techniques at RosettaCode
A few discussions in the Cojure Google Group — most from 2009
but none of them have answered the question satisfactorily.
My Clojure source code file defines a namespace and a bunch of functions. There’s also a function which I want to be invoked when the source file is run as a script, but never when it’s imported as a library.
So: now that it’s 2012, is there a way to do this yet, without AOT compilation? If so, please enlighten me!
I'm assuming by run as a script you mean via clojure.main as follows:
java -cp clojure.jar clojure.main /path/to/myscript.clj
If so then there is a simple technique: put all the library functions in a separate namespace like mylibrary.clj. Then myscript.clj can use/require this library, as can your other code. But the specific functions in myscript.clj will only get called when it is run as a script.
As a bonus, this also gives you a good project structure, as you don't want script-specific code mixed in with your general library functions.
EDIT:
I don't think there is a robust within Clojure itself way to determine whether a single file was launched as a script or loaded as a library - from Clojure's perspective, there is no difference between the two (it all gets loaded in the same way via Compiler.load(...) in the Clojure source for anyone interested).
Options if you really want to detect the manner of the launch:
Write a main class in Java which sets a static flag then launched the Clojure script. You can easily test this flag from Clojure.
Use AOT compilation to implement a Clojure main class which sets a flag
Use *command-line-args* to indicate script usage. You'll need to pass an extra parameter like "script" on the command line.
Use a platform-specific method to determine the command line (e.g. from the environment variables in Windows)
Use the --eval option in the clojure.main command line to load your clj file and launch a specific function that represents your script. This function can then set a script-specific flag if needed
Use one of the methods for detecting the Java main class at runtime
I’ve come up with an approach which, while deeply flawed, seems to work.
I identify which namespaces are known when my program is running as a script. Then I can compare that number to the number of namespaces known at runtime. The idea is that if the file is being used as a lib, there should be at least one more namespace present than in the script case.
Of course, this is extremely hacky and brittle, but it does seem to work:
(defn running-as-script
"This is hacky and brittle but it seems to work. I’d love a better
way to do this; see http://stackoverflow.com/q/9027265"
[]
(let
[known-namespaces
#{"clojure.set"
"user"
"clojure.main"
"clj-time.format"
"clojure.core"
"rollup"
"clj-time.core"
"clojure.java.io"
"clojure.string"
"clojure.core.protocols"}]
(= (count (all-ns)) (count known-namespaces))))
This might be helpful: the github project lein-oneoff describes itself as "dependency management for one-off, single-file clojure programs."
This lets you define everything in one file, but you do need the oneoff plugin installed in order to run it from the command line.
I'm confused by the concept of scripts.
Can I say that makefile is a kind of script?
Are there scripts written in C or Java?
I'd refer to Wikipedia for a detailed explanation.
"Scripts" usually refer to a piece of code or set of instructions that run in the context of another program. They usually aren't a standalone executable piece of software.
Makefiles are a script that is run by "make", or MSBuild, etc.
C needs to be compiled into an executable or a library, so programs written in (standard) C would typically not be considered scripts. (There are exceptions, but this isn't the normal way of working with C.)
Java (and especially .net) is a bit different. A typical java program is compiled and run as an executable, but this is a grey area. It is possible to do runtime compilation of a "script" written in java and execute it.
In a very general sense the term "Scripts" relates to code that is deployed and expected to run from the lexical representation. As soon as you compile the code and distribute the resulting output instead of the code it ceases to be a "Script".
Minification and obsfication of a script is not consided a compile and the result is still consider a script.
It depends on your definition of script. For me, a script could be any small program you write for a small purpose. They are usually written in interpreted languages. However, there's nothing stopping you from writing a small program in a compiled language.
For me a script has to consist of a single file. And that file must be able to perform the task for which the script was written with no intermediate steps.
So these would be OK:
bash backup_my_home_dir.sh
perl munge_some_text.pl
python download_url.py
But this wouldn't qualify, even if the file is small:
javac HandyUtility.java
java HandyUtility
Yes it's possible to do scripting in Java. I've seen it many times :)
(this was sarcasm for bad spaghetti code)
The term 'scripting' can cover a fairly broad spectrum of activities. Examples being programming in imperative interpreted languages such as VBScript, Python, or shell scripts such as csh or bash, or expressing a task in declaritive languages such as XSL, SQL or Erlang.
Some scripting languages fall into a category referred to as Domain Specific Languages (DSL's). Good examples of DSL's are 'makefile's, many other types of configuration files, SQL, XSL and so on.
What you're asking is fairly subjective, one man's script is another man's application. If your interpretation of scripting means that using scripting languages should not force a user to follow the traditional compile -> link -> run cycle, then you could form the opinion that you can't write 'scripts' in C or Java.
A script is basically a non-compilable text file in almost any language, or shell, with an interpreter that is used to automate some process, or list of commands, that you perform repeatedly. Scripts are often used for backing up files, compiling routines, svn commits, shell initialization, etc., ad infinitum. There are a million and one things you can do with a script that an executable (complete with installation, etc.) would simply be overkill for.
I write scripts in F#. A recent one is a small data loader to take in some set of data, do a bit of processing to it, and dump it in a DB. ~40 lines. No separate compilation step needed; I can just make F# Interactive run it directly.
Benefit is that I get a fully powered language with a great IDE and all the safety static checking provides, while inference makes it not get verbose like say, Java or C#.
So, that's one language that offers a reasonably decent type system, compilation and checking, isn't interpreteded, but works fine for scripting.