thisIsGoingToBeASeriousDebateTadoTheRustacean@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.dev – 271 points – 8 months ago41Post a CommentPreviewYou are viewing a single commentView all commentsPersonally, echo Hello World! use std::process::Command; fn main() { Command::new("sh") .arg("-c") .arg("echo Hello World!") .spawn() .unwrap(); } Like this?No, more like use std::process::Command; fn main() { Command::new("sh").arg("-c").arg("echo Hello World!").spawn().unwrap(); } . Just a little bit shorter, as it seems /sI just fucking threw upI did too. Multiple times in fact, I had to look at the other Rust code!Isn't echo a shell builtin?Yes and no. While coreutils does provide an echo binary, shells also have a built-in for optimisation purposes. At first I had the code calling the binary directly, but then changed it to spawning a shell (and so using the builtin). It's very cursed either way.
Personally, echo Hello World! use std::process::Command; fn main() { Command::new("sh") .arg("-c") .arg("echo Hello World!") .spawn() .unwrap(); } Like this?No, more like use std::process::Command; fn main() { Command::new("sh").arg("-c").arg("echo Hello World!").spawn().unwrap(); } . Just a little bit shorter, as it seems /sI just fucking threw upI did too. Multiple times in fact, I had to look at the other Rust code!Isn't echo a shell builtin?Yes and no. While coreutils does provide an echo binary, shells also have a built-in for optimisation purposes. At first I had the code calling the binary directly, but then changed it to spawning a shell (and so using the builtin). It's very cursed either way.
use std::process::Command; fn main() { Command::new("sh") .arg("-c") .arg("echo Hello World!") .spawn() .unwrap(); } Like this?No, more like use std::process::Command; fn main() { Command::new("sh").arg("-c").arg("echo Hello World!").spawn().unwrap(); } . Just a little bit shorter, as it seems /sI just fucking threw upI did too. Multiple times in fact, I had to look at the other Rust code!Isn't echo a shell builtin?Yes and no. While coreutils does provide an echo binary, shells also have a built-in for optimisation purposes. At first I had the code calling the binary directly, but then changed it to spawning a shell (and so using the builtin). It's very cursed either way.
No, more like use std::process::Command; fn main() { Command::new("sh").arg("-c").arg("echo Hello World!").spawn().unwrap(); } . Just a little bit shorter, as it seems /sI just fucking threw upI did too. Multiple times in fact, I had to look at the other Rust code!Isn't echo a shell builtin?Yes and no. While coreutils does provide an echo binary, shells also have a built-in for optimisation purposes. At first I had the code calling the binary directly, but then changed it to spawning a shell (and so using the builtin). It's very cursed either way.
Isn't echo a shell builtin?Yes and no. While coreutils does provide an echo binary, shells also have a built-in for optimisation purposes. At first I had the code calling the binary directly, but then changed it to spawning a shell (and so using the builtin). It's very cursed either way.
Yes and no. While coreutils does provide an echo binary, shells also have a built-in for optimisation purposes. At first I had the code calling the binary directly, but then changed it to spawning a shell (and so using the builtin). It's very cursed either way.
Personally,
Like this?
No, more like
.
Just a little bit shorter, as it seems /s
I just fucking threw up
I did too. Multiple times in fact, I had to look at the other Rust code!
Isn't echo a shell builtin?
Yes and no. While coreutils does provide an
echobinary, shells also have a built-in for optimisation purposes.At first I had the code calling the binary directly, but then changed it to spawning a shell (and so using the builtin). It's very cursed either way.