Updated CLI Argument Parsing (New)

[JamesDevlin5]

Re-implemented the argument parsing module, now using the nightly version of clap, and a derive-attribute pattern instead of the previous builder pattern, as suggested by @Xunjin in the previous pull request. The help page is colorized and very clean looking. Some small changes have yet to be fully implemented:

• The glob attribute on the cli arguments struct is commented out
• The unkillables cli argument is not split by tilde

Other than that, everything looks pretty good!

[Xunjin]

Looks awesome to me, what do you think @vrmiguel and @marcospb19 ?

[JamesDevlin5]

Also, not sure where else to post this but I wanted to let you know I created an arch linux package for bustd, on the aur. And additionally, created a packge for pacman hooks to enable, restart, and disable the bustd service with systemd.

[marcospb19]

Also, not sure where else to post this but I wanted to let you know I created an arch linux package for bustd, on the aur. And additionally, created a packge for pacman hooks to enable, restart, and disable the bustd service with systemd.

Awesome! Thanks for shipping bustd!

---

The only drawback of using clap is the increase in binary size:

$ du bustd pr-bustd --apparent-size -h
747K	pr-bustd
355K	bustd

All binaries compiled in release profile, and stripped.

New size (with this pr) is 210% of the previous one.

I am not sure if the gains in ergonomy are more important, as I don't expect people to be invoking bustd manually.

---

Note: I also tried compiling with opt-level = 'z':

347K	old
647K	new

Here the it drops from 210% to 186%, which is a bit better.

---

By running the following script:

B=binary ; ./$B ; sleep 1 ; pmap $(pgrep $B) ; pkill $B

For both binaries, I compared the memory consumption.

Current: 3040K
PR: 3432K

With opt-level = 'z':

Current: 3036K
PR: 3336K

---

Final decision of merging is up to @vrmiguel, but I know that he used argh instead of clap for this project with the purpose of keeping it tiny.

[Xunjin]

Also, not sure where else to post this but I wanted to let you know I created an arch linux package for bustd, on the aur. And additionally, created a packge for pacman hooks to enable, restart, and disable the bustd service with systemd.

Awesome! Thanks for shipping bustd!

The only drawback of using clap is the increase in binary size:

$ du bustd pr-bustd --apparent-size -h
747K	pr-bustd
355K	bustd

All binaries compiled in release profile, and stripped.

New size (with this pr) is 210% of the previous one.

I am not sure if the gains in ergonomy are more important, as I don't expect people to be invoking bustd manually.

Note: I also tried compiling with opt-level = 'z':

347K	old
647K	new

Here the it drops from 210% to 186%, which is a bit better.

By running the following script:

B=binary ; ./$B ; sleep 1 ; pmap $(pgrep $B) ; pkill $B

For both binaries, I compared the memory consumption.

Current: 3040K PR: 3432K

With opt-level = 'z':

Current: 3036K PR: 3336K

Final decision of merging is up to @vrmiguel, but I know that he used argh instead of clap for this project with the purpose of keeping it tiny.

Well I agree it does increase a lot if we look at percentage wise, however if you look at UX I believe it's the choice for this project to focus on. Sorry, but the final binary still under 1 MB, that's not a problem at all.

Could you give any update here @vrmiguel ?

[JamesDevlin5]

Another thought too, I also added the version flag, and all options have both long and short options, and the unkillables is included by default, whereas before it was only if the glob feature was enabled (I was just having some trouble implementing this, I've never done it before...). I'd guess that the clap crate does add some memory baggage, but if these flags were implemented using the previous framework they'd add at least a bit to the binary size, leveling the playing field a bit. (I just don't want to go back and implement these and I'm not familiar with argv.)

[vrmiguel]

Hey @JamesDevlin5! I'm very sorry for the catastrophic response to this PR 😢

I'm very glad you took time out to contribute to this project but a multitude of reasons made me take wayyy too long to consider if clap would be good for bustd, which led to this PR getting out of sync (and well, very old), for which I'd like to apologize

In any case, I'd argue that bustd benefits from a lower-profile smaller crate such as argh since it allows the binary to be smaller and use (very slightly) less RAM