The unix shell (bash) and remote login (ssh) are centerpieces of the server and app deployment process. While building Heroku, however, Orion and I became aware that these tools are pretty far out of step with modern, agile development practices.
I’ve wanted a Ruby-syntax replacement for the unix shell from almost the moment I began using Ruby. Whenever I can, I write shell scripts as Ruby scripts with lots of backticks. But the “everything is text” mechanism starts to show its age when you end up with Ruby code like this:
my_ip = `ifconfig | grep inet | grep -v 127.0.0.1 | grep -v inet6`.match(/inet ([\d.]+)/)
Yergh. (If you’ve never had occasion to write code like this in the wild, just check out god's process lookup methods.)
What we really want - the modern way - is to query the unix system (filesystem, processes, network, services) as if they were a database. This avoids the fragility of text pipes, the complexities of firing up a complete new environment on each system call, and would allow unit tests of system-level code.
This is why I’ve created rush. It’s a replacement for bash and ssh which uses Ruby syntax. More than that: it IS ruby. Imagine an irb shell in which you can do everything you can do at the unix command line, but without any backticks. That’s the vision; what I’ve got so far is a good start in that direction.
I said it replaces ssh, so this isn’t just a shell: you can use it to control an arbitrary number of remote boxes, using the exact same interface as you would locally. Copy a file, or grep through a logfile, or kill a process - whether the machine is remote or local, the interface is identical.
Unlike the character-based connection of ssh, the rush client connects to the rushd process on the remote server and passes discrete commands. This is very similar to connecting to a remote database. When you run a SQL query, it makes no difference to the programmer whether the connection is a remote box or a local one; the client handles this seamlessly. You can even connect to multiple databases from the same client. rush goes even a step further by allowing you to pass data seamlessly between any number of local and remote connections.
A quick example:
local = Rush::Box.new('localhost') remote = Rush::Box.new('my.remote.server') local['/etc/hosts'].copy_to remote['/etc/']
Check the rush website for more examples and to try it out.
One of the inspirations for rush as a shell was this preview of MSH, the Microsoft shell. I get the feeling that this is vaporware (though I don’t really know, not being in the Microsoft world at all), but the concepts introduced in the preview really struck home. Treating data returned from shell commands - like file matches from grep or processes from ps - as discrete objecs, rather than text which can be parsed, is the obvious next evolution for shells.
There are some other deficiencies in the bash+ssh model:
HTML parse error: <ul> <li><b>Consistency.</b> Bash is a full-fledged programming language; more specifically, it's a DSL for managing a unix system. But it could also be considered a collection of smaller languages. Standard tools like cp, mv, ps, grep, sed, and sort all have their own unique syntax. You may combine several of these in a single command, which is a bit like mixing several different programming languages on one line. I've been using unix shells on a daily basis for well over a decade, and still I sometimes forget the syntax for a particular command. Compare this to Ruby, or any other modern scripting language, where just a few months of working with the language is enough to teach you 90% of the language's syntax.</li> <li><b>Quoting.</b> Bash commands often have many layers of quoting. Consider:
ssh remote "rm `grep '^class Thing' lib/* -l`"
This has four layers of quoting: the bash command line on the client, the bash command line on the server, the backticks, and the regexp. This leads to both confusion (do I need one backslash or two to escape this quote character?) and is riddled with security holes.</li>
HTML parse error: <li><b>Quirks and limitations.</b> Two that I frequently bump into are running out of space in the command line buffer space with backticks, such as:
grep some_method `find . -name \*.rb`
On a large project, you’ll need to rewrite this with xargs:
find . -name \*.rb | xargs grep some_method
If the directory has filename with spaces in them, you have to use the null separator option on both find and xargs:
find . -name \*.rb -print0 | xargs -0 grep some_method
Ick. In rush, this would be:
</li> <li><b>Exceptions.</b> Bash commands have three outputs: stdout, stderr, and the shell return value. Most of the time you're only interested in one and can ignore the others. But for more advanced uses, you need two, or perhaps all three. Explicitly checking for return values (or worse, pattern matching against stderr) is not a lot of fun. Exceptions are the modern way to handle errors.</li>
HTML parse error: </ul>
Go give it a try, and then tell me what you think.