the pre-commit framework does not abstract away “hooks shouldn’t be run during a rebase”, nor “hooks should be fast and reliable”, nor “hooks should never change the index”.
Not sure how you got to that conclusion, as the pre-commit framework does indeed abstract them away. Maybe you're confusing it with something else?
> hooks shouldn’t be run during a rebase
The pre-commit framework doesn't run hooks during a rebase.
> hooks should be fast and reliable
The pre-commit framework does its best to make hooks faster (by running them in parallel if possible) and more reliable (by allowing the hook author to define an independent environment the hook runs in), however it's of course still important that the hooks themselves are properly implemented. Ultimately that's something the hook author has to solve, not the framework which runs them.
> hooks should never change the index
As I read it the author says hooks shouldn't change the working tree, but the index insteead and that's what the pre-commit framework does if hooks modify files.
Personally I prefer configuring hooks so they just print a diff of what they would've changed and abort the commit, instead of letting them modify files during a commit.
> Ultimately that's something the hook author has to solve, not the framework which runs them.
correct. i'm saying that hook authors almost never do this right, and i'd rather they didn't even try and moved their checks to a pre-push hook instead.
It fills me with joy to know that those are irreconcilable. It lifts the burden of having to reconcile these things and I know that my self expression can be directed elsewhere.
Whatever beauty exists in engineering comes from the purity of it. A fighter plane or a microchip looks beautiful, not because it was designed to be so, but because of the purity of the functionality, the harshness of the requirements.
If you turn a fighter plane into an art project, then it will be inherently ridiculous. It will make a mockery of its own purpose, looking at it will be like looking at a cripple.
> it's often that the amount of time i've spent thinking about something (a lot) is totally disproportionate to the time i spend typing my thoughts up (a little)
oh, this is a really good way of putting it! that’s exactly what happened :)
you could build an emacs frontend for this model! the thing i am trying to describe is “getting out of the box”. imagine a terminal session that is shared between emacs, iTerm, and a mobile phone ssh’d in over the network, that’s my vision.
> Great, now you just need to build and maintain shims for every tool in existence, force your users to use your own custom tools that support these features, and ensure that everything interoperates smoothly.
An article called "A Spreadsheet and a Debugger walk into a Shell" [0] by Bjorn (letoram) is a good showcase of an alternative to cells in a Jupyter notebook (Excel like cells!). Another alternative a bit more similar to Jupyter that also runs on Arcan is Pipeworld.
I was thinking of Arcan and the Lash#Cat9 setup by the end of your second paragraph. I'm very surprised you had not met it: it seems so directly aligned with your interests and goals, but all you seemed to talk about was Jupyter, a tool which I tried and TBH discarded after 10min.
I talked to Bjorn Stahl quite a bit before writing it, but he is so smart he seems to me to find it hard to talk down to mere mortals. There's a pretty good interview with him on Lobsters:
this is really cool omg! i didn't know that, i'll do some research.
one of the strange things to me about the terminal landscape is how little knowledge sharing there is compared to other domains i'm familiar with. iTerm has a bunch of things no one else has; kitty influenced wezterm but otherwise no one else seems to have valued reflection; there's a whole bunch of extensions to ANSI escapes but most of them are non-standard and mutually incompatible. it's weird. if i compare to something like build systems, there's a lot more cross-pollination of ideas there.
