Hi, author here. I’ve written a debugger for sed in Rust. This was not only to learn rust, but to actually have a solid debugger for sed. I’ve started learning sed recently and decided to start writing various algorithms in it. And as sed doesn’t have numbers and can just filter/transform text, this is a challenge even for something like comparing two numbers. I’ve seen people do amazing things with it.
I’d be glad for any comments regarding code quality or the debugger itself.
What does the GNU sed debugger interface look like? Which docs did you use, and were they sufficient?
Does the interface resemble that of other GNU tools like bash and make? I've always wondered about these projects. Everyone says that bash and make are hard to debug, but I've never heard of anyone using them. It seems to be more common to use batch mode tracing rather than debugging.
I'll add technical section to readme, but for short. I've used tui-rs[1] with crossterm[2] backend (which handles the actual terminal interaction). The docs may seem intimidating, but it's surprisingly easy to use.
I've considered using curses, but tui-rs seemed that it will be easier to handle. I can certainly recommend it for making tui applications.
I didn't actually use any documentation at all, it wasn't in the man page and I didn't feel like hunting for it, as it was pretty easy to understand just by looking at the output.
OK thanks, that's helpful! It looks like a lot of the newer terminal rendering library use "diff" style of rendering like web frameworks, rather than something more stateful like curses?
Is that why you thought it would be easier? You just update the entire page on every action, and it takes care of the details of coming up with the minimal terminal codes?
----
This is only tangentially related, but for those interested in programming in obscure languages, I recently discovered ble.sh which is a 30K+ line TUI for bash written in pure bash! It does basically what the fish shell does, so it has a terminal rendering library, utf-8 decoder, terminal decoder, bash parser with an AST, etc. all in bash.
Yes, my priority was making the UI done as fast as possible, as I wanted to focus on making the debugger and didn't want to think too much about UI. I looked at some examples of both of them and decided that tui-rs looks easier to use, it takes care of everything for me. Note that I might be wrong, I didn't spend even half an hour looking at the frameworks.
Another reason, albeit really small, was that tui-rs was written specifically for rust, and curses framework I looked into were essentially just C bindings, making it a bit weird to use. To be fair, this disadvantage is by far outweighed by the fact that curses is far more popular than tui-rs, and there is so much more tutorials and documentation to be found about it.
But I wanted to focus on writing the debugger, so I went with what seemed to be more convenient option and paid the price of lower control and performance - for example I have troubles implementing syntax highlighting because tui-rs tries to be clever with mine ansi escape codes.
---
Thanks for the links, especially the ble.sh looks amazing.
Really cool stuff, I've been working on being able to debug sed scripts as well by translating it to pseudo readable C[1], compiling the result and then using gdb to step in the script, but this TUI is much more readable!
Surprisingly easy! I was scared of building TUI like this because it seemed so complex, but it's actually not that hard. Or at least, with tui-rs[1], which is surprisingly easy to pick up. Once you read two or three examples, you'll gain pretty good overview of how to build applications with it. I can definitely recommend it, it does all the heavy lifting and leaves surprisingly little for you to care about. Just don't forget to unset terminal raw mode before your application exits, or else you'll start breaking people's terminals :-)
I certainly do. This is meant just as a toy, and way to learn Rust, which is what I've written this in. If I need to actually achieve something, I use python or haskell.
However sed is perfect if you have spare time and want to write basic programs in unnecessarily complex way for fun.
A long time ago I wrote a reformatting utility for a client in sed, because my manager didn't want to have to support the utility and Anderson claimed it couldn't be done in any language. The Androids whined and then they rewrote it in C++, which they had to support.
> However sed is perfect if you have spare time and want to write basic programs in unnecessarily complex way for fun.
There are certain things that are difficult to do in sed, but are much easier to do in ed. Though ed doesn't have the branch command and labels, having essentially random access throughout the file makes up for it.
> We have lots of mature, debuggable languages to process text...
You mean like sed? Sed was written in the 70s and has been in mission critical stuff for decades on many platforms. What are you recommending that is more mature than that?
Sed does not have a debugger that is 50 years old. The author was not saying that sed is a bad tool; he's saying it doesn't have a debugger. If there is a desire to have a debugger for the tool, that has existed for 50 years without having one, perhaps the tool is not being used in the way it has been used for the last 50 years. This would seem to make the argument that the tool has been tried and tested less relevant.
COBOL was written in the 60s and has been in mission critical stuff for decades. Neither of those factors means it's the right tool for the job now.
The things I'm recommending that are more mature are Go, Python, D, Rust, or any other language that is more verbose and maintainable than regular expressions. Anything with a full debugger, IDE support, and useful error messages is a better choice.
Except COBOL often is the right answer for text processing now, meets all your criteria (debugger, IDE, maintainable, etc) and far more mature than Go, Python, Rust or D (really...D?).
Which could be said about any newly fashionable language. Or any niche language. And in the case of COBOL, it's not even true. Here's a little hint: just because you don't know any COBOL programmers, doesn't mean they don't exist. My own company has a couple of hundred, and we have an outsourcing partner that has a several thousand. We are not unique.
I’d be glad for any comments regarding code quality or the debugger itself.