[RFC] Is the binary named `wren` or `wren_cli`

[joshgoebel]

In the source/help:

    printf("Usage: wren [file] [arguments...]\n");
    // ...
    printf("wren %s\n", WREN_VERSION_STRING);

Are we wren or wren_cli. I'd prefer wren to be honest (like node)... can we agree on which it is though so this can be made consistent?

[clsource]

I think the name should be wren_cli since wren is the language and wren_cli is a project that embeds the language. Naming wren_cli just wren can cause confusions. I think one approach could be using wren_cli and then a simple symbolic link to have a wren executable for those who want to type less 👍

[joshgoebel]

Naming wren_cli just wren can cause confusions.

How so? If there is no wren binary and the only way to run Wren from console is the CLI, then I'm not seeing the confusion.

My argument (since you made one) is that "Wren" is the language and wren is the tool that executes Wren scripts. Much like Node.js is the language and node is the tool that executes Node.js programs. If this was Linux package-style naming I think you'd have wren and wren-lib perhaps?

Anyways, I don't want to die on this hill, but _cli is just useless clutter in my mind. _Almost every command line tool could be suffixed with _cli, that's literally what they all are_ - and it adds no value. Ultimately though I think it boils down to how the two projects are related to each other and "what is Wren".

[clsource]

To be honest I'm fine with either way of using the CLI 👍 I will accept whichever name is settled for 💯

[ChayimFriedman2]

What about examining the executable name from the first command line argument?

[clsource]

[ChayimFriedman2]

???

[clsource]

What about examining the executable name from the first command line argument?

Aaah you mean getting it from arg[0] Sorry I just though other thing like the first argument like --help