Start all of your commands with a comma (2009)
360 points by theblazehen 3 days ago | 123 comments

mathfailure 5 hours ago
I didn't like the idea. I prefer the alternative approach: _I_ decide the order of dirs in the PATH env. If I introduce an executable with a name, that overrides a system one - I probably do that intentionally.

If I introduce an alias (like `grep='grep --binary-files=without-match --ignore-case --color=auto`) that matches the name of a system binary - I probably do that intentionally.

And if I EVER need to call grep without my alias - I just prefix it with a backslash: \grep will search with case sensitivity and no color and will scan binaries.

reply
bayindirh 2 hours ago
Looked so backwards to me, too. However, I decided to give it a go, anyway. Now, I have some scripts and small commands which start with a comma, and it looks neat and time saving.

Yes, I can do path ordering to override usual commands. However, having a set of odd-job scripts which start with a comma gives a nice namespacing capability alongside a well narrowed-down tab-completion experience.

While it's not the neatest thing around, it works surprisingly well.

Another idea which looks useless until you start using is text expanders (i.e.: Espanso and TextExpander).

reply
mathfailure 43 minutes ago
I never knew that what I've known as 'hotstrings' (since the AutoHotKey days) other sometimes also call 'text expanders'.
reply
xbryanx 59 minutes ago
Love Alfred Snippets for this same text expander need.
reply
mid-kid 4 hours ago
Either adding your script directory in front of the PATH, or creating `alias` that provide a full path to your script where a conflict exists, makes a whole lot more sense to me.

I've never had this collision problem yet, despite appending my script directory to the end, but I'll use either of the above solutions if that ever becomes a problem.

reply
mathfailure 16 minutes ago
One rarely actually needs to shadow binaries. Some cases could indeed be covered by introducing an alias that binds the binary's name to call a different copy of that binary.

You use shadowing to fix issues where you install some software that expects you to have a sane and ~recent version of some tool like git, but you don't as your system provides that binary and unfortunately it is either not sane (not GENERALLY sane [while it could be sane for system scripts]) or not recent enough. In that case the program's function would simply fail if it would call the system's binary and you shadow the binary with your version to fix that.

> adding your script directory in front of the PATH

That's a poor advice for the scripts you call relatively frequently. Instead, (as a general approach, we aren't discussing some particular script) don't use shadowing for scripts: just pick a non-conflicting script name and append the script's dir to $PATH.

reply
CGamesPlay 3 hours ago
I do this, and routinely shadow commands with my own wrappers to do things like set environment variables.

And then there’s Claude. It deletes whatever it finds at ~/.local/bin/claude, so I have to use a shell function instead to invoke the full path to my wrapper.

reply
e1g 3 hours ago
You can use an alias, which takes priority over $PATH. e.g. I have this in .zhsrc to override the "claude" executable to run it in the OS sandbox:

    alias claude="sandbox-exec -f ~/agents-jail.sb ~/.local/bin/claude --dangerously-skip-permissions"
reply
plagiarist 3 hours ago
How does your sandbox ruleset look? I've been using containers on Linux but I don't have a solution for macOS.
reply
e1g 27 minutes ago
Here's my ruleset https://gist.github.com/eugene1g/ad3ff9783396e2cf35354689cc6...

My goal is to prevent Claude from blowing up my computer by erasing things it shouldn't touch. So the philosophy of my sanboxing is "You get write access to $allowlist, and read access to everything except for $blocklist".

I'm not concerned about data exfiltration, as implementing it well in a dev tool is too difficult, so my rules are limited to blocking highly sensitive folders by name.

reply
112233 4 hours ago
Any severe side effects so far? Have you set PATH up somehow so it is effect only on interactive prompt, and not in the launched processes?

Because I cannot imagine much 3rd party scripts working with random flags added to core tools

reply
deredede 4 hours ago
I also do this.

Random flags added to core tools are done with aliases, which do not affect the launched processes, not by shadowing them in ~/bin. Shadowing in ~/bin are for cases where a newer (compared to the system-wide version) or custom version of a tool is needed.

reply
mathfailure 34 minutes ago
Not really, since if one usually does that - they probably understand the possible consequences and don't shadow whatever they like, but do it carefully.

On MacOS I shadow that way just curl and git binaries to the versions installed from homebrew and nothing has broken (yet). I know that tar on MacOS is also a weirdo that I'd rather shadow with the homebrew's gtar, but their args are different and I of course understand that there's a high probability of something in system to be bound to mac's version of tar, so here I better remember to use 'sane' tar as gtar or use an alias (instead of shadowing the binary) for tar to use gtar (because aliases are for users, not for system scripts/processes).

And on my home desktop's Debian - I don't even use shadowing of binaries at all (never needed it).

Also, I just realized: I change PATH env via my shell's rc script (~/.zshrc), so I probably could worry even less about shadowing system binaries (like tar on MacOS) possibly breaking things.

reply
alance 4 hours ago
Just on your first suggestion, this also means that if a person or process can drop a file (unknown to you) into your ~/bin/ then they can wreak havoc. Eg they can override `sudo` to capture your password, or override `rm` to send your files somewhere interesting, and so on.

Btw on the second suggestion, I think there's a command named `command` that can help with that sort of thing, avoids recursive pitfalls.

reply
functionmouse 3 hours ago
That would require someone to already want to sabotage me in particular, learn my private workflows, and also have write access to my home folder. At that point, All is Lost.

Don't tell people to sacrifice agency for apocalypse insurance that doesn't work, lol

reply
latexr 3 hours ago
If someone can drop a file in your ~/bin, they can also edit your shell’s startup files to add their malicious command.
reply
wtetzner 3 hours ago
I think it's already game over if they have access to your home directory. They can also edit your path at that point.
reply
dieulot 2 hours ago
The issue of rootless malicious command overrides is solved by typing the whole path, such as "/bin/sudo".
reply
mathfailure 28 minutes ago
No, don't do that as a precaution. As others have already answered correctly - it's too late to worry about such things if a malicious agent has write access to your ${HOME} dir.
reply
znpy 3 hours ago
While true, what you describe is very unlikely to happen and most definitely won’t happens on systems where i’m the only users.
reply
pmarreck 3 hours ago
I do the same thing, but I also have a command that shows me what functions or scripts might be shadowing other scripts
reply
e40 2 hours ago
Care to share?
reply
cluckindan 30 minutes ago

  which <commandname>
reply
lowmagnet 27 minutes ago
the sibling answer but with `-a` before command name, will display all path hits for a command.
reply
chrisjj 4 hours ago
> If I introduce an executable with a name, that overrides a system one

... and breaks existing scripts that reference the system one, right?

reply
amszmidt 4 hours ago
Not if it is an alias.
reply
hk__2 3 hours ago
But yes if it’s another executable.
reply
fragmede 4 hours ago
curious if you're customizing anyway, why not use eg ripgrep?
reply
mathfailure 46 minutes ago
Others have already given valid answers: grep is not ripgrep [their params don't match], so it's a bad idea to alias 'grep' to use ripgrep. But it's okay to alias 'ripgrep' (or 'rg' or whatever) to use ripgrep with some args.
reply
wtetzner 3 hours ago
repgrep's CLI options and general behavior are different from grep. I tend to use both for different things.
reply
llimllib 3 hours ago
Not OP, but I use ripgrep and customize it with an alias as well, so it applies equally there
reply
jkercher 3 hours ago
Tangentially related. Don't ever put "." in your PATH. I used to do this to avoid typing the "./" to execute something in my current directory. BAD IDEA. It can turn a typo into a fork bomb. I took down a production server trying to save typing two characters.
reply
mathfailure 3 minutes ago
I like to follow my own convention where I name files with shell scripts with an extension: .sh for POSIX-compatible scripts, .bash for scripts with bashisms or .zsh for scripts with zshisms.

If I ever wanted to achieve what you initially wanted to achieve - I could use something like

alias -s sh=sh

alias -s bash=bash

alias -s zsh=zsh

Just like I do bind .txt and .conf to 'less', .pdf to 'qpdf', .json to 'ijq', video formats to 'mpv' and so on.

reply
lanyard-textile 30 minutes ago
Elaborate?? "." has been at the end of my PATH for like 20 years.
reply
zelphirkalt 30 minutes ago
Why does this go wrong and in what situation?
reply
Kiboneu 2 hours ago
lol. What a beautiful footgun — for such a tiny optimization.
reply
michaelcampbell 2 hours ago
Glad it worked for OP, but I've never once in 30+ years of this had a conflict that did something I didn't want. ~/bin/ is early in my PATH, and for a good reason. Things I put in there I want to take precedence, so I use this to purposely override provided bins. (Though I can only think of one time I wanted to do that, too.)
reply
pkulak 12 minutes ago
There’s this program on nix that lets you type a comma, then any application name that exists anywhere in the Nix repos. It then downloads that app and runs it once, without “installing” it. Sometimes I find myself running something dozens of times this way before I realize it should probably be in my config.
reply
ljouhet 5 hours ago
Most of my aliases contain `--` for the same reason, `git--progress`, `grep--rIn`, `nvidia--kill`, `ollama--restart`, `rsync--cp`, `pdf--nup`...

Easy autocomplete, I know there won't be any collision, and which command is mine.

reply
finghin 3 hours ago
Great hack!
reply
caeruleus 5 hours ago
Prefixing commands solves the namespace problem and discoverability (at least partly). I use a slightly more sophisticated method, which helps me remember which custom utilities are available and how to use them: sd [1], a light wrapper written for zsh that, in addition to namespaces, provides autocompletion, custom help texts + some other QoL enhancements. Can definitely recommend if you're looking for something a bit more fancy.

[1] https://github.com/ianthehenry/sd

reply
alzee 4 hours ago
Using commas in filenames feels kind of weird to me, but I do use a comma as the initiator for my Bash key sequences. For example: ,, expands to $ ,h expands to --help ,v expands to --version ,s prefixes sudo

You put keyseqs in ~/.inputc, set a keyseq-timeout, and it just works.

reply
pmarreck 3 hours ago
would an alias just work in this use-case?
reply
listeria 16 minutes ago
Global aliases are a zsh feature and not avaliable in bash. So if you want:

  openssl ,v
to expand to...

  openssl --version
readline seems like the way to go.

Then again most of the examples OP gave are usually available as short options, and aliasing ,s to sudo is certainly possible. So the only one which makes sense to me is ,,=$. But it's probably not worth the trouble to my muscle memory.

reply
pmarreck 2 hours ago
also. did you mean .inputrc ?
reply
tomcam 5 hours ago

    Every tool and shell that lay in arm's reach treated the comma as a perfectly normal and unobjectionable character in a filename.
WTF. After 40 years maybe I should have figured that one out.
reply
pm215 4 hours ago
It's not a completely non special character: for instance in bash it's special inside braces in the syntax where "/{,usr/}bin" expands to "/bin /usr/bin". But the need to start that syntax with the open brace will remind you about the need to escape a literal comma there if you ever want one.
reply
XCSme 3 hours ago
What about using the filename in arrays in bash/sh?
reply
layer8 3 hours ago
But Bash arrays don’t use comma, what’s the problem?
reply
XCSme 2 hours ago
Oh, that might be true, I do remember encountering some escaping issues when creating a more complex POSIX (or bash) script that involved lists and iterating through stuff.

I see Bash only uses commas in Brace expansions:

file{1,2,3}.txt # file1.txt file2.txt file3.txt

I guess it would only be a problem if you want to expand

    file,.txt   
    file,,.txt   
    file,,,.txt
reply
XCSme 2 hours ago
Imagine seeing this code:

    echo file{",",",,",",,,"}.txt
reply
pmarreck 2 hours ago
Have you met Bash? It’s a shrine to space-delimited everything lol
reply
layer8 2 hours ago
I reworded my comment for clarity now.
reply
mike-the-mikado 4 hours ago
Until someone forces you to use a file system that cannot tolerate commas...
reply
layer8 3 hours ago
Which file system would that be?
reply
layer8 3 hours ago
You never used CVS/RCS with its “,v” files?
reply
macintux 2 hours ago
This has been a popular topic nearly every time the post makes the HN front page.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40769362 (2024, 169 comments)

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31846902 (2022, 123 comments)

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22778988 (2020, 90 comments)

reply
impoppy 4 hours ago
Why so many people use ~/bin/? What’s wrong with ~/.local/bin?
reply
gucci-on-fleek 2 hours ago
I personally use both, each for different purposes.

I snapshot my entire home directory every hour (using btrfs+snapper), but I exclude ~/.local/ from the snapshots. So I use ~/.local/bin/ for third-party binaries, since there's no reason to back those up; and ~/bin/ for scripts that I wrote myself, since I definitely want to back those up.

This is a pretty idiosyncratic use though, so I'd be surprised if many other people treated both directories this way.

reply
1313ed01 4 hours ago
Random things are installed in ~/.local/bin. In ~/bin I have only what I put there.
reply
kps 2 hours ago
Personally I use ~/opt//bin where ~/opt is a ‘one stop shop’ containing various things, including a symlink to ~/local and directories or symlinks for things that don't play well with others (e.g. cargo, go), and an ~/opt/prefer/bin that goes at the start of PATH containing symlinks to resolve naming conflicts.

(Anything that modifies standard behaviour is not in PATH, but instead a shell function present only in interactive shells, so as not to break scripts.)

Unix lore: Early unix had two-letter names for most common names to make them easy to type on crappy terminals, but no one* letter command names because the easier were reserved for personal use.

reply
lupire 2 hours ago
What's the difference between opt and local?

I thought was for mixin externally provided systems like Homebrew, local is for machine or org-level customizations, and ~ is for user-level customizations.

reply
kps 56 minutes ago
/opt showed up as a place for packaged software, where each package (directory) has its own bin/, lib/, man/, and so on, to keep it self-contained rather than installing its files in the main hierarchy. ~/opt is just a per-user equivalent, analogous to /usr/local vs ~/.local.

The advantage of /opt is that multi-file software stays together. The disadvantage is that PATHs get long.

reply
maleldil 2 hours ago
I use ~/.local/bin for installed programs, and ~/bin for my own scripts.
reply
pmarreck 2 hours ago
The latter is XDG.

~/bin predates it.

And of course you can use both.

reply
xorcist 2 hours ago
Why would you want to store your binaries in a hidden directory?

It kind of goes against the idea why dotfiles are dot-prefixed.

reply
dark-star 4 hours ago
~/bin/ preceeds the XDG Base Directory Specification.

~/.local was only invented around 2003 and gained widespread usage maybe 15 years or so ago...

People used ~/bin already in the 90s ;-)

reply
zhouzhao 4 hours ago
Nothing. I also use `~/.local/bin/`
reply
1vuio0pswjnm7 5 hours ago
I use a different prefix character, e.g. "[", but I have been doing this for years

I started using a prefix because I like very short script names that are easy to type

I prefer giving scripts numbers instead of names

Something like "[number"

I use prefixes and suffixes to group related scripts together, e.g., scripts that run other scripts

I have an executable directory like ~/bin but it's not called bin. It contains 100s of short scripts

reply
feelamee 4 hours ago
do you publish dotfiles and scripts anywhere? I'm interested to see them
reply
matheus-rr 50 minutes ago
This is one of those "obvious in hindsight" tricks. The comma prefix gives you a namespace that's guaranteed to never collide with system binaries, shell builtins, or anything from a package manager.

I do something similar with my personal scripts — prefix them with a short namespace. The real win isn't just avoiding collisions though, it's tab completion. Type the prefix and tab, and you immediately see all your custom stuff without wading through hundreds of system commands.

The 2009 date on this is wild. Some of these simple unix conventions age better than most frameworks.

reply
sevg 5 hours ago
This is one of those ideas that is so simple and elegant that it makes you think “why did I never think of doing this?!”

Neat trick! I don’t think I’ll namespace everything this way, because there’s some aliases and commands I run so often that the comma would get annoying, but for other less frequently used helper scripts then this will be perfect!

reply
bonzini 5 hours ago
I do something similar with build trees, naming them +build, +cross-arm etc.

This convention was suggested by the GNU Arch version control system years ago (maybe 20??), but it's really useful for the same tab completion reason and I have kept it for almost two decades, even when I switched to git.

reply
amszmidt 4 hours ago
It was suggested by Tom Lord (RIP), who used it heavily long before he wrote GNU Arch.

File names or directories starting with a comma where considered “junk”, and ones with a plus sign I think where considered “precious”.

reply
pjerem 5 hours ago
Maybe then try ending your commands with a comma so that you don’t break first-char autocomplete !
reply
stavros 5 hours ago
But that's the killer feature for me! I always forget the little commands I've written over the years, whereas a leading comma will easily let me list them.
reply
jph 5 hours ago
Clever hack! <3 I also do namespacing yet in a different way.

I create a home directory "x" for executables that I want to manage as files, and don't want on PATH or as alias.

To run foo: ~/x/foo

For example I have GNU date as ~/x/date so it's independent of the system BSD date.

reply
vitorsr 4 hours ago
Nice although I think the ASCII comma feels wrong as part of a filename even if for purely aesthetic reasons.

If we want to stay within (lowercase) alphabetic Latin characters I think prefixing with the least common letters or bigrams that start a word (x, q, y, z, j) is best.

`y' for instance only autocompletes to `yes' and `ypdomainname' on my path.

Choosing a unique bigram is actually quite easy and a fun exercise.

And we can always use uppercase Latin letters since commands very rarely use never mind start with those.

reply
diydsp 3 hours ago
Its some what natural to german spkrs who use a special set of double quotes to start a quote in print.
reply
mromanuk 5 hours ago
It’s clever, but is not aesthetic. A comma feels unnatural in the fs.
reply
layer8 3 hours ago
So did the dot in dotfiles originally. You’ll get used to it if you want to.
reply
mystifyingpoi 4 hours ago
It doesn't have to be a literal file, it can be an alias.
reply
lupire 2 hours ago
That doesn't make it "feel" less "unnatural".
reply
elhosots 2 hours ago
I think its a fairly good idea - but for myself, i had already mapped csh’s default history character (!) to a comma (,) for the same reason - no shift key to invoke.
reply
dcchuck 3 hours ago
I prefer all my custom commands as 1 letter.

On my most frequently used machine/dev env this means -

e for vim

m for mise

n for pnpm

c for Claude

x for codex

reply
maleldil 2 hours ago
r for uv run

j for just

I use fish abbreviations for this, as they expand to the full command in the shell history.

reply
dddw 3 hours ago
d for deploy to production
reply
Ylpertnodi 2 hours ago
f for friday
reply
falloutx 5 hours ago
Finally a post that is relevant to what I have been looking for quite some time.

Also, kudos to keeping it so concise and to the point, thats some prime writing.

reply
nickelpro 3 hours ago
Properly manage PATH for the context you're in and this is a non-issue. This is the solution used by most programming environments these days, you don't carry around the entire npm or PyPI ecosystem all the time, only when you activate it.

Then again, I don't really believe in performing complex operations manually and directly from a shell, so I don't really understand the use-case for having many small utilities in PATH to begin with.

reply
Dove 2 hours ago
In many contexts in which I am trying to deconflict namespaces, I use my initials. I hadn't thought about it in this particular context, though now that I do, it seems fortunate that I am ced rather than sed.
reply
Tade0 4 hours ago
As a non-native English speaker I just name them in my native language or using British English spelling.

I have a command named "decolour", which strips (most) ANSI escape codes. Clear as day what it does, almost nobody uses this spelling when naming commands that later land as part of a distribution.

reply
temporallobe 3 hours ago
I don’t think this is a terrible idea, though stylistically it bothers me. I suppose you could simply have a prefix command router that would essentially do the same thing. I also started using “task” recently and it’s been a game changer for my CLI life.
reply
mogoh 3 hours ago
What is task?
reply
alex-moon 3 hours ago
It is like make but designed specifically for the way non-C(++) users - people like me for example adding scripts like "make run" and "make build" to my node/python/PHP/etc repos - use it. It is great! I still don't use it literally just because make is already installed on any *nix system I encounter day to day.
reply
karolist 5 hours ago
Interesting, though I never had enough custom scripts to justify this, I prefer oh-my-zsh plugin style short aliases instead, i.e. https://github.com/ohmyzsh/ohmyzsh/tree/master/plugins/git
reply
tezza 4 hours ago
This is a really good practical step if you worry about name collisions

quick, easy and consistent. entirely voluntary.

Bravo

reply
dadandang 5 hours ago
,Start all of your commands with a comma
reply
zdc1 5 hours ago
Should be titled Prefix your script names with a comma. Current title is a little clickbait-y through its ambiguity.
reply
albert_e 4 hours ago
Agree.

I thought the title meant I should type ,ls instead of ls.

reply
JamesTRexx 4 hours ago
,sudo make me a sammich

Like so?

reply
skerit 4 hours ago
I would have never thought of that. Funny that a comma can be used like that.

Off-topic: What the hell is that font on this website? And why does the "a" look like that?

reply
gugod 5 hours ago
I tried a variant or this idea so many years ago after I leaned git and rearranged some of my personal tools as subcommands (like git) of a single executable named "dude,"

It went weird pretty quickly...

reply
eMPee584 15 minutes ago
.. examples?
reply
feelamee 4 hours ago
can someone explain security consideration of placing scripts into $HOME? Some time ago I moved all my scripts to /usr/local/bin, because I feel that this is better from security perspective.
reply
Galanwe 4 hours ago
There are no security implications, on the contrary.

It is objectively cleaner to keep your user scripts in your home, that way they are only in _your_ PATH, whereas putting them in /usr/[local/]bin implicitly adds them to every [service] user on the machine, which I can see creating obscure undesired effets.

Not even mentioning the potential issues with packages that could override your scripts at install, unexpected shadowing of service binaries, setuid security implications, etc.

reply
layer8 3 hours ago
Someone with access to your home dir can also set your $PATH and aliases to anything they want, so I don’t see any extra security considerations here.
reply
ndsipa_pomu 5 hours ago
I appreciate the idea, but the comma just looks horrible to me as part of a filename. I can imagine someone unfamiliar with the naming scheme to get confused.

I'd prefer to use underscore (when writing BASH scripts, I name all my local variables starting with underscore), but a simple two or three letter prefix would also work. I don't like the idea of a punctuation prefix as punctuation usually has a specific meaning somewhere and including it as the first character in a filename looks wrong. (e.g. Comma is typically used as a list separator and it's a bit of cognitive dissonance to see it not used in that context)

reply
layer8 2 hours ago
Underscore requires pressing Shift, however.

> I don't like the idea of a punctuation prefix as punctuation usually has a specific meaning somewhere and including it as the first character in a filename looks wrong.

So you don’t use dotfiles? ;)

reply
ndsipa_pomu 2 hours ago
Well dotfiles demonstrate that punctuation can have a special meaning in filenames.

I'm not convinced by "quicker to type" arguments as that's rarely the bottleneck, so I'm perfectly happy with using underscores in filenames and variables. I wouldn't use underscore as the beginning character of a filename unless it had a specific meaning to me (e.g. temporary files), so I'd be more inclined to use a two or three character prefix instead.

reply
layer8 2 hours ago
For me it’s not about quickness, but about strain. Like in RSI.
reply
eterps 5 hours ago
I use my_ as a prefix.
reply
k3vinw 11 minutes ago
That’s a more meaningful prefix than “,” at the expense of a couple more key strokes. I consider that to still be a win in the book of tab completions.

I would replace underscore with “-“ or “.”

reply
ndsipa_pomu 4 hours ago
I used to use "do" as a prefix e.g. "doBackup"

Nowadays, I tend to skip using a personal prefix and just try to name commands with a suitable verb in front (e.g. "backupMySQL") and ensure that there's no name collisions.

reply
JamesTRexx 4 hours ago
Whenever I see "my" as a prefix, it feels like such a childish "my first Sony" thing. I hate official sites using that.
reply
laughing_snyder 4 hours ago
> Like many Unix users, I long ago created a ~/bin/ directory in my home directory

`.local/bin` seems to be much more common in my experience for this use case. And for good reason.

reply
Levitating 4 hours ago
~/bin is actually created per default on OpenSUSE (though it's removal has been discussed several times).
reply
zhouzhao 4 hours ago
Unclutter your $HOME!
reply
luplex 5 hours ago
similarly, I start all my underscorends with an underscore
reply
bronlund 5 hours ago
This is just brilliant. Thanks.
reply
yunohn 4 hours ago
I read this blog a few years ago, and implemented it soon after with a refresh of my rc files and shortcuts. Gamechanger - has helped me every single day since. It’s easy to remember, autocompletes easily, and adds a little flair of personalization.
reply
z0ltan 2 hours ago
[dead]
reply