Re: a more light-weight Woosh?

[Martin Hinsch <http://www.wosx30.eco-station.uni-wuerzburg.de/~martin>]

Here it is :-).

On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 09:55:50AM -0500, Robert wrote:
 > I like your idea of Woosh (I haven't used it, 'though :-), but I was hoping
> for something that was more light-weight.  I mean, I'd use something like
> Ruby, Python, or even Perl, but 99% of the time, in a shell script, I call
> other scripts or executables -- I'd rather not have to say 'system("blah")'
> for each script or executable I want to call.  I notice lots of recurring
> patterns in my shell scripts, particularly the larger ones, but it seems 
> like
> breaking it down into classes would make the most sense and flexibility.
> 
> Do you know of anything like this?  Perhaps a mutated Python where unknown
> keywords or object references would instead resolve as calling another
> shell script or executable?
> 
> Thanks.

Hmmm, difficult. I think ruby offers much shell functionality wrapped into
Ruby-classes - sadly minus piping of commands. Apart from this one, the only
solution that comes to my mind is actually woosh ;-), maybe you should just 
give
it a try. I used it to (successfully) bring some order into a bunch of shell-
scripts which pre- and postprocessed simulation runs and found it quite con-
venient (which was very surprising for me since I wrote it in the first place
because I loved the concept). There's one guy who wrote an interface to woosh
for his own embeddable scripting language (http://www.folta.net/steve/Screet/)
.
He says his language now can operate directly on woosh-objects, which - if
I understood you correctly - could be the thing you are looking for. 
Otherwise I guess this is a wonderful opportunity for you to start an exciting
new project ;-). 
Well, that's all I can think of now - hope i've been helpful. 

kind regards
Martin Hinsch

0931 / 4045858

Oekologische Station der Universitaet Wuerzburg
Glashuettenstrasse 5
96181 Rauhenebrach
Germany