cat mario.nes | nc play-nes.org 4444(github.com) |
cat mario.nes | nc play-nes.org 4444(github.com) |
I chuckled.
> stty -icanon && cat mario.nes - | nc play-nes.org 4444
stty makes the keyboard work, and "-" is needed after .nes.
< mario.nes nc play-nes.org 4444The actual command is "cat mario.nes - | nc ...”
The trailing dash allows you to actually control the game after the rom has been loaded.
The Wikipedia article even concedes that cat might be better:
> A cat written with UUOC might still be preferred for readability reasons, as reading a piped stream left-to-right might be easier to conceptualize.[10] Also, one wrong use of the redirection symbol ">" instead of "<" (often adjacent on keyboards) may permanently delete the content of a file, in other words clobbering, and one way to avoid this is to use cat with pipes.
I‘ll happily continue to “abuse cat” going forward and sleep perfectly well.
> When I offer a pipeline as a solution I expect it to be reusable. It is quite likely that a pipeline would be added at the end of or spliced into another pipeline. In that case having a file argument to grep screws up reusability, and quite possibly do so silently without an error message if the file argument exists. I. e. `grep foo xyz | grep bar xyz | wc` will give you how many lines in xyz contain bar while you are expecting the number of lines that contain both foo and bar. Having to change arguments to a command in a pipeline before using it is prone to errors. Add to it the possibility of silent failures and it becomes a particularly insidious practice.
- Someone who knows the trick
OP, I appreciated that bit
"Let me give a half effort on X product. Oh, see, nobody likes it. Well, guess I'll go ahead and shutter it."
It's a shame that products with so much potential have all the resources put into them wasted with their behavior.
Definitely this. The service itself was great, was ahead of the competition gameplay-wise. Google just did what Google does.
It's great to see somebody picking up the idea again and extending it.
It's a cool idea. Lots of possibilities for fun RPC projects with distributed processing.
Remotely accessible 80-column cards and custom mappers FTW, eh?
Good reminder that projects are meant to be implemented.
(Yes, this isn't entirely serious, but people could and did make use of it)
https://www.arewesixelyet.com/#gnome-terminal
Looks like if you build the latest libvte from master and make sure to explicitly enable sixel support via the appropriate build time flag, you can then build GNOME Terminal against that and you'll have sixel support:
However, while i got the game to render, I couldn't get the game to respond to controls after that, so YMMV
Given you have a NES ROM named “mario.nes” in your current folder, you will play that ROM by executing the full command.
It literally reads the ROM file, what cat normally does.
Have Logger with StdoutLogger as basic example of it
Then FileLogger that extends it with few functions related to files
Then DBLogger with few functions related to logging to database
Then TestLogger for integrating with test framework
Stuff like GEForce Now is already great for that "core" gamer market that wants to be able to use their existing steam library but play them on their phone on the go or whatever, but that's a pretty small market because most "core" gamers would never use a streaming service as their primary system so the market is fairly small (latency, resolution, quality etc is poor compared to native).
But nobody has properly targeted that more general "I want to play games with zero up front effort or knowledge" case yet. And I suspect that's a pretty big market.
I think part of the problem is the game studios and publishers have enjoyed immense profits, that have continued to grow. Nintendo just upped their base price to $70. I don't think they will let that level of profit go easily.
See Jonathan Leffler's comment on SO (also demonstrated by the the top-level parent comment here):
> As noted in the answer by kojiro, it is perfectly possible and legal to start the pipeline with `< file command1 ...`. Although the conventional position for the I/O redirection operators is after the command name and its arguments, that is only the convention and not a mandatory placement. The `<` does have to precede the file name. So, there's a close to perfect symmetry between `>output` and `<input` redirections: `<input command1 -opt 1 | command2 -o | command3 >output`.
> We are used to read from left to right, so a command like
> `cat infile | process1 | process2 > outfile`
> is trivial to understand.
> `process1 < infile | process2 > outfile`
> has to jump over process1, and then read left to right. This can be healed by:
> `< infile process1 | process2 > outfile`
> looks somehow, as if there were an arrow pointing to the left, where nothing is.
Sure, you can have the inputfile precede the process, but then you have to precede _that_ with a glyph which appears to suggest "send this data to the preceding command". You know and I know that that's not what `<infile` really means, but I claim (and others are free to subjectively disagree) that, in the context of an exploratory gradually-incrementing bash query, the extra brain cycles to remember what `<infile` really means are not worth the extra compute cycles of the extra process of a "useless" cat.
To someone who's fully internalized the workings of the shell, then sure, using `<infile` is _technically_ more efficient, at the expense of being less readable to less-experienced engineers. The tradeoff between readability and performance is always a case-by-case decision.
"oh but you can save one character" (one coz <> requires shift) yeah fuck that, if I was bothered with it I'd alias cat to c
Like most large organisation they tend to approximate a small government and they're inherently incapable of using their resources efficiently. Every once and then they will acquire a start-up that works to give new blood to the behemot.
It has coincided with the creation of a lot of new terminal emulators (some of the youngest have the most support for sixel and similar features), and with the trend of using GPU acceleration in terminal emulators.
I couldn't exactly say 'why now', but one guess is that macOS' explosion in popularity among developers and the relatively high popularity of desktop Linux within the developer community in particular have produced a generation of developers who appreciate the power and flexibility of the Unix command line but have also grown up with rich graphics on their computers from the start.
There's clearly a strong contemporary desire for a more IDE-like terminal experience, and for graphically enriched tools that are still decidedly text-centric. Efforts to establish new standards and protocols for this have mostly withered or seen little uptake, so resurrecting support for (today) rarely-used features of old physical terminals has emerged as a viable approach for adding graphics to our CLI environments.
Maybe some day we'll escape from the 80s, but for now it seems that we are still returning to them to find 'new' material, for various practical reasons.
This so much!
I mostly have 2 apps running: Edge and a terminal. On windows, this terminal is mintty (wonderful!) or Windows Terminal (no sixel support yet).
On wayland, I use foot or wezterm. I need plots, and it's much faster to use gnuplot without leaving the terminal
When I need more, I open excel or rstudio. Excel cells are very text centric, and likewise for Rstudio chunks.
> Maybe some day we'll escape from the 80s, but for now it seems that we are still returning to them to find 'new' material, for various practical reasons.
I use notebooks for literate programming. It seems new? (as in, I don't think it was done in the 80s)
I wouldn't say embedding graphical content is a return to the 80s, but more like making a new mashup taking the best of the old (command line interface= minimalist yet powerful) and the recent (graphics= high information density) to go beyond the limitations of each.
I've done a bit of the same with Emacs via Org-mode and Babel, and I want to do more! Literate programming (and even literate DevOps!) is great.
If it's picking up these days, I think that's wonderful. But the idea is indeed from 1984 (via Knuth)! So in that way, the resurgence of literate programming is the result of mining the ancient computing past for great ideas we've not yet done enough justice as an industry/practice/science. :)
> I wouldn't say embedding graphical content is a return to the 80s, but more like making a new mashup taking the best of the old (command line interface= minimalist yet powerful) and the recent (graphics= high information density) to go beyond the limitations of each.
I wrote what I wrote without any real pessimism. I think there's a lot that's still great about old technology, like Unix or Lisp.
In terms of really 'escaping from the 80s' I had something narrower in mind, like the actual implementation details of retaining compatibility with old terminals and implementing new features via escape sequences and stuff like that. I think some day more of a clean slate could be more flexible or easier to hack on. (Which is, for me, just a hunch— I've never worked on a terminal emulator myself.) But even then, I think that 'escape' would still be as much about doing justice to old ideas as being able to let go of old implementation details.
It's not ideal unless you use a very small font, but it's better than nothing.
BTW some people recompile libvte to get proper sixel support in their favorite terminal: https://github.com/mate-desktop/mate-terminal/issues/410 and then get results like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLQbAYJGZMA
Today I Learned :)
> I think some day more of a clean slate could be more flexible or easier to hack on. (Which is, for me, just a hunch— I've never worked on a terminal emulator myself.)
Not really. Please understand the old protocols (ex: sixels) as making you handle a required subset of the problems the new protocols (ex: kitty, etc) will also require you to handle (like storing the bitmap, invalidation, scrollback)
> But even then, I think that 'escape' would still be as much about doing justice to old ideas as being able to let go of old implementation details.
As long as I can get videos and plots along text in my terminal, I don't care if it's old or new: it just enables me to do more :)
I'd say "basic" shell knowledge is that commands or programs produce output which is where many stop and why it's common to use cat this way.
In general I tend to err less on the side of "you're holding it wrong" gatekeeping in tech and when there's a common issue with something, blame the tech rather than the users. Maybe the way shell handles input, output, and redirection isn't intuitive and poorly designed. For those that already know there's an ego thing going on condescending to users who haven't learned as much that prevent honest or productive conversations on these topics.
That's not gatekeeping. I'm pretty sure anyone that points out `<` would like anyone that doesn't know it to become familiar with it. That's precisely why they mention it. To gatekeep would be for someone to say that people that aren't familiar with it shouldn't have access to the shell. No one is saying that.
> There is room for other interpretations, but I'd say if it's super common for people to not know something, which appears to describe this, it doesn't meet the definition of basic. I'd say "basic" shell knowledge is that commands or programs produce output which is where many stop and why it's common to use cat this way.
I feel that's the same bar as saying that knowing how to use a keyboard and mouse is not basic because most people just learn to use their phone's touch interface, given how there's now a lot of people that have a smartphone but not a computer. I don't mean in our circles, but in general.
What's probably going on is that the boundary between basic and intermediate probably moves depending on increased adoption with different proportions of motivations. That is, most learners of the shell before were probably motivated to use it as their main interface, later one of their main interfaces, and now maybe there's a lot of people that need to run a command or 2 but don't really want to use it as an interface at all, so they never bother to learn beyond the most absolute minimum they need to.
> Maybe the way shell handles input, output, and redirection isn't intuitive and poorly designed.
I don't think being intuitive is always the most important criteria to something being well designed. Many things imply trade-offs, and for example if the average potential user values versatility over intuitiveness, and there's a tradeoff to be made between the 2, it's ok to not go for the intuitive option.
That said, the redirection operators seem as intuitive as they can be. Arrow from file to command for input, arrow from command to file for output. What's a better alternative? To just remove file redirection features and leave piping?
Processes will have inheritable file descriptors. Right now, the easiest and quickest way to make ad-hoc arbitrary arrangements of file descriptors is with the shell's file redirection features. Doing it on anything else (Python, C, whatever) requires more code. That seems like successful design to me.
date > file
Similiar with
wc < file
The assumption from seeing it is "program on left, data on right"
< file wc
Honestly I don't think that in 15+ years I ever saw that in the wild in any shell script
I've done it in shell scripts, very rarely interactively. In scripts, it sometimes just looks better defining that part first.
Wait until you see the redirect in the middle of program arguments. That's where it gets confusing. At least the redirect at the very beginning or very end of the line is easy. :)
I have more important things to worry about than making the line less readable and less maintainable
> Briefly, here's the collected wisdom on using cat:
> The purpose of cat is to concatenate (or "catenate") files. If it's only one file, concatenating it with nothing at all is a waste of time, and costs you a process. The fact that the same thread ("but but but, I think it's cleaner / nicer / not that much of a waste / my privelege to waste processes!") springs up virtually every time the Award is posted is also Ancient Usenet Tradition.
> That's not gatekeeping. I'm pretty sure anyone that points out `<` would like anyone that doesn't know it to become familiar with it.
Can't see it being pointed out here. No snark intended.
I was also interpreting user3939382's use of gatekeeping in the context of other similar comments not just the one they were directly replying to. That's probably my mistake.
It's about building the query, really. Here is example:
cat file.log
cat file.log |grep error_name
cat file.log |grep error_name | tail
cat file.log |grep error_name | grep -v 'user: mon'| head
zcat file.log.1 |grep error_name | grep -v 'user: mon'| head
zcat file.log.{10..1} |grep error_name | grep -v 'user: mon'| head
You can't for example do
< file.log.{1..10} zcatThere's also zgrep: https://man.openbsd.org/OpenBSD-5.9/grep.1
What's natural about using tar to create .tar.gz files instead of using them to archive files to tape?
"cat is to catenate" sounds like an argument from people that need to get out and smell the flowers once in a while
From 'man cat'
> cat – concatenate and print files
So if I want to print a file to stdout, I'll use cat, thanks.
Despite the dismissive tone of the article you linked, if the overhead of one single process was remotely relevant, shell wouldn't be a good fit.