Iterm2, Growl, and tmux
chiggsy
Yi Wen
when you ssh to a remote machine doing stuff. It (again, according to
what I have read) will make you feel like you work in a local iterm2
without losing the functionality's that tmux provides.
Growl so far is not super useful with iterm2 for me, but if you start
programming it, it has endless potentials.
George Nachman
The long-term plan for iTerm2 was formed about a year ago, but never
written down. It is subject to change without notice. In no particular
order (and annotated with how far done things are):
1. Fix all iTerm bugs and any bugs I introduce (?%)
2. Make the UI sane (70%)
3. Add a bunch of small-to-medium-size features that have been added
to my personal terminal wishlist over the last 15 years (90%)
4. Split panes (95%)
5. Tmux integration (50%)
6. Embed a scripting language (0%)
7. Flawless unicode support (70%)
8. Great performance (50%)
9. Implement anything I missed that 80% of the users would like to
have even if I personally wouldn't. (80%)
As Yi said, tmux integration will be a big deal for people who use
ssh. If you just hang out on localhost, you'll never know it's there.
I want to use tmux but don't because the UI drives me crazy, so this
falls squarely in the "things I need for my day to day work" category
:).
I anticipate that 2.0 will close objectives 1, 4, and 5. Then 3.0 will
finish off the rest. After that, new features will be focused on
scripts and support for scripts.
Steve King
6. Embed a scripting language (0%)
George Nachman
execute applescript in your own process? Wait, don't answer: I hate
applescript so much I would go back to using DOS before writing a
single line of that execrable garbage. I really think that having a
good scripting language is more important than having a standard
scripting language. Otherwise we'd all still be using PERL for web
development :)
Chas. Owens
> I want to evaluate the script inside iTerm2--is it even possible to
> execute applescript in your own process? Wait, don't answer: I hate
> applescript so much I would go back to using DOS before writing a
> single line of that execrable garbage. I really think that having a
> good scripting language is more important than having a standard
> scripting language. Otherwise we'd all still be using PERL for web
> development :)
I do use Perl (not PERL) for web development, intentionally. If you
are looking for a good and standard application scripting language,
check out Lua (http://www.lua.org/about.html). Barring that, I would
love for the embedded language to be Perl :)
--
Chas. Owens
wonkden.net
The most important skill a programmer can have is the ability to read.
George Nachman
Lua, mostly because I've tried to embed Python in the past and I still
have nightmares about it. Also, if people are going to be expected to
embed code in applescript then not being whitespace sensitive is nice.
But I'm open to ideas on this. Lua is a bit obscure--I've never used
it--so that'll be a barrier for lots of people.
Tom Feist
http://perldoc.perl.org/perlfaq1.html#What%27s-the-difference-between-%22perl%22-and-%22Perl%22%3f
</pedantry-mode>
:)
On the actual subject in question, lua is incredibly easy to embed - it was designed
that way. I dunno about python, but I've poked around a bit in the internals of Irssi, which
embeds a Perl interpreter, and that's pretty gruesome IMO.
A better solution might be to use the applescript-y API, and then use a scripting bridge
to avoid having to actually use applescript to talk to it. Something like
http://arstechnica.com/apple/guides/2011/09/tutorial-os-x-automation-with-macruby-and-the-scripting-bridge.ars
perhaps.
I think there are bridges for all the major scripting languages, so people can take their
pick. Ruby is just an example here.
--T
George Nachman
other way. Anyway, the scripting bridge thingy looks pretty cool. It
nicely solves the problem of wrapping your native objects in the
scripting language's objects. Will keep this in mind!
Marko Milivojevic
-Marko.
Chas. Owens
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 16:39, George Nachman <gnac...@llamas.org> wrote:
>> I swear it used to be an acronym, but all the facts seem to point the
>> other way. Anyway, the scripting bridge thingy looks pretty cool. It
>> nicely solves the problem of wrapping your native objects in the
>> scripting language's objects. Will keep this in mind!
>
> Yes, I remember it stood for "Practical Extraction and Report Language".
>
> -Marko.
>
Nope, it was never an acronym. It has had many backronyms created for
it (such as the one you cite). Larry Wall's favorite is Pathetically
Eclectic Rubbish Lister.
Chas. Owens
> PERL was my first love, so it's all good :). But I am leaning towards
> Lua, mostly because I've tried to embed Python in the past and I still
> have nightmares about it. Also, if people are going to be expected to
> embed code in applescript then not being whitespace sensitive is nice.
> But I'm open to ideas on this. Lua is a bit obscure--I've never used
> it--so that'll be a barrier for lots of people.
I have never used it either, but then again I don't tend to use
embedded languages. This list from Wikipedia seems to indicate that
it is fairly widely used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lua_(programming_language)#Other