Regarding

  if [[ -r "$(brew --prefix)/opt/mcfly/mcfly.zsh" ]]; then
    source "$(brew --prefix)/opt/mcfly/mcfly.zsh"
  fi

Tip: hardcode brew --prefix. It's /usr/local for most people anyway. brew is written in Ruby so invocations are expensive; brew --prefix takes ~30ms on my systems so the above snippet adds ~60ms to shell startup which is a complete waste. Add a couple of frivolous snippets like this and you have people complaining about slow startup.

Or as a compromise, `export BREW_PREFIX=$(brew --prefix)` somewhere nearer startup.

Optimization on that:

    if [[ -d /usr/local/opt/mcfly ]]; then
        export BREW_PREFIX=/usr/local
    else
        export BREW_PREFIX=$(brew --prefix)
    fi

I like what pyenv does when you do

    pyenv init

It prints the command for you. They could add the check there, generate the static path and then just print what they need to add hardcoded.

Edit,

For reference, this is what it prints on the different shells,

On ZSH,

    # Load pyenv automatically by appending
    # the following to ~/.zshrc:
    
    eval "$(pyenv init -)"

On Bash,

    # Load pyenv automatically by appending
    # the following to ~/.bash_profile:
    
    eval "$(pyenv init -)"

On Fish,

    # Load pyenv automatically by appending
    # the following to ~/.config/fish/config.fish:
    
    status --is-interactive; and source (pyenv init -|psub)

If every module you load does their own 30ms check, it might cut 60ms to 30ms at each call site but they add up just the same.

Of course.

I’m saying they print what you should add. I’m not saying have an init command that you run on your shell script on startup. I’m saying have an init command that tell you what to put.

I think the hardcoded approach by smichel17 with a fallback is a good one. Except that if you ran this command, it might print a different hardcoded path based on where it found the prefix to be at.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll change that.

> The command's historical exit status. You probably don't want to run old failed commands.

I often will use ctrl R to run tests, and they keep failing until I fix all the bugs.

I suppose the idea is that the neural network will learn that you do that, and maybe that you do that more often in some directories than others, or for commands with "test" in the name, etc.

so, I just learnt from this that brew apparently now supports linux.

Can someone tell me why someone would want to use brew rather than their existing package manager on linux? Is it due to existing familiarity with brew, or the large number of snippets in people's docs that show how to install with brew?

Genuine question, I'm sure there are reasons to want to use it over a builtin package manager on linux, I'm just not sure what they are.

It depends on the package.

Some folks want the newest and brew might update faster than Debian, e.g., Cmake was at 3.10 on Ubuntu for the longest time but Brew had it at 3.15.

Me personally, I've run into waaaaaaaaay too many issues trying to run more than one package manager. The best solution I've encountered: use the native package manager first, and if you need a new version of something, build it manually BUT SAVE THE BUILD DIRECTORY for uninstall.

(My favourite bug was autoconf tools requiring dependencies that were mixed between brew and macports: each one required the other to be first in the PATH!!)

I tried LinuxBrew on my Raspberry Pi to install couple of packages not in Debian. Unlike MacOS, you don’t get « bottled » packages (pre-built), so it took a while to compile and pulled in build dependencies. Wasn’t pleased, but:

I would consider it for writing build/install recipes for personal projects since I’m familiar with it. So that’s at least one use case. :)

I use it in crostini on my chromebook. Packages are much newer than what comes with the debian install there. Also doesn't require root access (after installation of linuxbrew itself).

It’s great if you are on a system where you don’t have root and you want to install some packages.

Is this not overkill for a reasonably straight forward recommendation system?

Of course it is. fzf [1] is all you need, and it behaves deterministically.

[1] https://github.com/junegunn/fzf

Yes, a linear weighting of factors would be perfectly fine.

But we're in 2020. A small two-layer MLP has a negligible impact when compared to the work to (e.g.) output the current git branch at every command prompt.

What does overkill mean? I think unless shell history search is a "solved problem", which I don't believe is possible, there isn't such a thing as overkill.

Maybe. But it's worth a try.

Would this be a good candidate for the neural Turing Machine architecture? Where the goal is to learn the memory access patterns of an internalised memory bank ...

If the shell commands were vectorised into a formalised encoding and then this encoding was stored in the neural memory bank and the objective function of the neural network was to learn the access patterns (reads and writes) of this memory, then it would have enough contextual awareness (through access patterns) and internal knowledge (through The formalised command vectorisation) to know that if I “cd (somewhere)” run a few commands then a likely command might be “cd (back)” without supervised training data?

All learnt through essentially observation by the network?

And if so, learning the symbolic nature of the directory name, and the relationship to “cd” and how that is accessed would be a rudimentary form of abstract reasoning, no?

I wish someone would build that and force you to use it for the next six months.

NTMs and similar are very slow at learning, and would (e.g.) not pick up on the fact that you've created a directory until you've interacted with it a couple thousand times.

> I wish someone would build that and force you to use it for the next six months.

Ok, ok, I was only asking / wondering, sorry I asked, sheesh

This is an amazing tool right next to ripgrep, starship and lsd.

I've heard so much about starship lately but I found it super slow.

what are starship and lsd?

It’s a shell prompt to Bash, ZSH, Fish and powershell with features like showing git branch you are, virtualenv name, nix-shell name, etc. it’s very useful. See more https://starship.rs/

lsd is a ls alternative https://github.com/Peltoche/lsd

If curious see also

2018 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18593015