implemented feedback.

content/posts/cli-renaissance/index.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 +++
-title = "A modern CLI renaissance?"
+title = "The modern CLI renaissance."
 date = 2024-03-04T12:20:02-06:00
 draft = true
 +++
@@ -83,10 +83,9 @@ xsel -bi
 ls specifically can trace its history to 1961 
 -->
 
-Take a look at this [table](#appendix-the-tools) at the bottom of the page.
-I'll wait.
-Notice the relative scarcity between ~1995 and ~2015?
-Id like to talk about a trend I've seen these past few years,
+Over the past few years, it seems like the rate at which new CLI tools are being written has picked back up again,
+accelerating after seeing relatively little activity between ~1995 and ~2015.
+I'd like to talk about this trend I've noticed,
 where people are rewriting and rethinking staples of the command line interface,
 why I think this trend might be happening,
 and why I think this trend is a good thing.
@@ -112,14 +111,6 @@ Terminal programs now coexist with graphical user interfaces,
 and only a small subset of computer users even know they exist,
 whereas in the past, terminals were the only way one interacted with the computer.
 
-Perhaps more importantly, our knowledge has expanded:
-our knowledge of user interfaces,
-of what works and what doesn't,
-of what usecases are common and what usecases are niche,
-the way that error messages can teach,
-the value of a good out of the box experience,
-and the value of documentation that is easy to find and digest.
-
 These changes to the environment surrounding CLI apps in recent years have
 led to a resurgence in development of command line utilities.
 Instead of just developing completely new tools or cloning old tools,
@@ -187,15 +178,15 @@ whats there.
 
 Vim (top right) greatly improved on Vi, adding things such as syntax highlighting, line numbers, spellchecking, split windows, folding, and even basic autocompletion.
 However, everything but syntax highlighting is either extremely clunky or outright disabled without configuration.
-(for example, the earliest things I did when I first made a `.vimrc` was to enable indent folding,
-make some better keybinds for navigating windows, and adding a line number ruler to the side)
+For example, the earliest things I did when I first made a `.vimrc` was to enable indent folding,
+make some better keybinds for navigating windows, and adding a line number ruler to the side.
 
 Neovim (bottom left) further improved on Vim, adding support for Treesitter and the Language Server Protocol, 
 but the out of the box experience is the *exact* same as vim!
 In order to take advantage of the LSP and Treesitter support, you have to install plugins,
 which means learning a Nvim package manager, learning how to configure LSPs,
 and configuring a new LSP for every language you want to use it with
-(or finding out about Mason and being OK with having multiple levels of package management in your Nvim install alone).
+or finding out about Mason and being OK with having multiple levels of package management in your Nvim install alone.
 Don't get me wrong: Neovim is a great editor once you get over the hump.
 I still use it as my daily driver, but so much of its functionality is simply hidden.
 
@@ -205,16 +196,92 @@ Helix doesn't have plugin support [yet](https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/di
 but it has so much stuff in core that,
 looking through my neovim plugins,
 pretty much all of them are in the core editor!
-(Ironically, the one feature that I feel helix is missing, [folding](https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/issues/1840),
-is a core part of neovim, albeit one that requires some configuration to get good use out of).
+Ironically, the one feature that I feel helix is missing, [folding](https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/issues/1840),
+is a core part of neovim, albeit one that requires some configuration to get good use out of.
 Helix does have a config file where you can change a huge amount of settings,
 but its an extremely usable IDE out of the box thanks to having all of its features enabled by default.
 
 ### Helpful error messages
 
 <!-- look at nushells error messages -->
+When the user does do something wrong, it is vital to let them know exactly what, where, and how it went wrong,
+and if at all possible, what action the user can do to fix it.
+`Operation Failed`, `Error` or `syntax error` on their own are horrible error messages.
+They tell you that something *somewhere* failed, giving almost no information the user can use to troubleshoot.
+In the worst case, they can even point you in a completely different direction than what is actually needed to fix things.
+Git is a good example of this. As much as I love git, sometimes its error messages are the  opposite of helpful.
+To borrow an example from [Julia Evans](https://jvns.ca/blog/2024/04/10/notes-on-git-error-messages/#git-checkout-asdf),
+if you run `git checkout SomeNonExistantBranch`, you get:
+`error: pathspec 'SomeNonexistantBranch' did not match any file(s) known to git`.
+This is confusing because you are trying to checkout a branch, you arent thinking about files.
 
-TODO [before](../nushell)
+Another example, I covered [before](../nushell) is the contrast between Bash and Nushell.
+Consider the following script:
+{{<highlight sh "linenos=false">}}
+$ for i in $(ls -l | tr -s " " | cut --fields=5 --delimiter=" "); do
+echo "$i / 1000" | bc
+done
+{{</highlight>}}
+
+This gets the sizes of all the files in KiB. But what if we typo the cut field?
+
+{{<highlight sh "linenos=false">}}
+$ for i in $(ls -l | tr -s " " | cut --fields=6 --delimiter=" "); do
+echo "$i / 1000" | bc
+done
+
+(standard_in) 1: syntax error
+(standard_in) 1: syntax error
+(standard_in) 1: syntax error
+(standard_in) 1: syntax error
+(standard_in) 1: syntax error
+(standard_in) 1: syntax error
+(standard_in) 1: syntax error
+(standard_in) 1: syntax error
+(standard_in) 1: syntax error
+{{</highlight>}}
+
+Due to the syntax error coming from bc rather than bash directly,
+even the line number it gives you is misleading,
+and in order to have the slightest clue whats going on,
+you have to start print debugging.
+
+The equivalent in nushell would be:
+
+{{<highlight sh "linenos=false">}}
+> ls | get size | each {|item| $item / 1000}
+{{</highlight>}}
+
+and the equivilant error would be:
+{{<highlight sh "linenos=false">}}
+> ls | get type | each {|item| $item / 1000}
+Error: nu::shell::eval_block_with_input
+
+  × Eval block failed with pipeline input
+   ╭─[entry #5:1:1]
+ 1 │ ls | get type | each {|item| $item / 1000}
+   · ─┬
+   ·  ╰── source value
+   ╰────
+
+Error: nu::shell::type_mismatch
+
+  × Type mismatch during operation.
+   ╭─[entry #5:1:30]
+ 1 │ ls | get type | each {|item| $item / 1000}
+   ·                              ──┬── ┬ ──┬─
+   ·                                │   │   ╰── int
+   ·                                │   ╰── type mismatch for operator
+   ·                                ╰── string
+   ╰────
+
+{{</highlight>}}
+
+Though the first error isnt helpful, the second one tells us right away that `$item` is not what we expect it to be,
+hopefully pointing us to the `get type` mistake.
+Nushells error messages are miles ahead of other shells just...
+being useful, helping you find where you made an error,
+rather than just telling you theres an error *somewhere*.
 
 ### Concise and discoverable documentation
 
@@ -325,9 +392,25 @@ allowing for more people to experiment with the design and ergonomics of CLI too
 
 ## Conclusion
 
-TODO
-<!-- emphasize that the new tools are not 'better' just because they are new,
-but because they take the old tools and learn what did and did not work for them. -->
+> If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
+
+-- Isaac Newton, 1675
+
+Once again, Id like to state that I am not advocating for shiny new tools *because* they are shiny and new.
+Likewise, I dont think the old tools are *bad*, nor does their age alone count against them.
+However, new tools have the opportunity to learn from their predecessors and build upon them.
+In this way, the new tools are a tribute to those tools that came before;
+a recognition of their strengths, an acknowledgement of their weaknesses.
+
+Now, these new tools are not the be-all end-all of the command line interface.
+Just because this new generation of tools improve on the old ones,
+it does not mean they are themselves perfect.
+As we use these tools, we will become familiar with them,
+and we will discover their sharp edges,
+or their common usecase will change,
+or we develop a new usecase entirely.
+And when these things happen, we will develop yet another generation of tools,
+one further polished and adapted to new usecases.
 
 ## Appendix: the tools