Programming

• I compared npm, Yarn, pnpm, and Bun. TLDR version: pnpm wins for most teams, Bun wins if you’re already on the runtime.

  Has anyone switched their whole team to Bun yet? How’d that go?

  Mar 12, 2026 Programming Tools javascript

• I wrote about securing node_modules. Socket, Snyk, Dependabot — each catches different things. Hopefully answering when to use AI to rewrite simple deps you barely use.

  Anyone want to build that CLI?

  Mar 11, 2026 Programming security javascript

• Wrote a guide on writing a good CLAUDE.md. Takeaway: keep it under 200 lines. Every line loads into context every session, so bloat costs real tokens.

  How are you handling multiple AI context files across tools?

  Mar 11, 2026 Programming Tools Claude-code

• When to Use Python Over Bash

  When to use python over bash is really a question of when to use bash. Python is a general-purpose language that can handle just about anything you throw at it. Bash, on the other hand, has a very specific sweet spot. Once you understand that sweet spot, the decision makes itself.

  What Bash Actually Is

  Bash is an interactive command interpreter and scripting language, created in 1989 for the GNU project as a free software alternative to the Bourne shell. It pulled in advanced features from the Korn shell and C shell, and it’s been commonly used by Unix and Linux systems ever since.

  What makes Bash unique is its approach to data flow programming. Files, directories, and system processes are treated as first-class objects. Bash is designed to take advantage of utilities that almost always exist on Unix-based systems. So think of tools like awk, sed, grep, cat, and curl. Another important thing to know when writing effective Bash scripts, you also need to understand the pipeline operator and how I/O redirection works.

  A good Bash script will look something like this:

  #!/bin/bash
  set -euo pipefail
  
  LOG_DIR="/var/log/myapp"
  DAYS_OLD=30
  
  find "$LOG_DIR" -name "*.log" -mtime +"$DAYS_OLD" -print0 |
    xargs -0 gzip -9
  
  echo "Compressed logs older than $DAYS_OLD days"
  

  Simple, portable, does one thing well. That’s Bash at its best.

  Where Bash Falls Short

  Bash isn’t typed. There’s no real object orientation. Error handling is basically set -e and hoping for the best. There’s no try/catch, no structured exception handling. When things go wrong in a Bash script, they tend to go wrong quietly or spectacularly, with not much in between.

  Python, by contrast, is optionally strongly typed and object-oriented. If you want to manipulate a file or a system process in Python, you wrap that system entity inside a Python object. That adds some overhead, sure, but in exchange you get something that’s more predictable, more secure, and scales well from simple scripts to complex logic.

  Here’s that same log compression task in Python:

  from pathlib import Path
  import gzip
  import shutil
  from datetime import datetime, timedelta
  
  log_dir = Path("/var/log/myapp")
  cutoff = datetime.now() - timedelta(days=30)
  
  for log_file in log_dir.glob("*.log"):
      if datetime.fromtimestamp(log_file.stat().st_mtime) < cutoff:
          with open(log_file, "rb") as f_in:
              with gzip.open(f"{log_file}.gz", "wb") as f_out:
                  shutil.copyfileobj(f_in, f_out)
          log_file.unlink()
  

  More verbose? Absolutely. But also more explicit about what’s happening, easier to extend, and much easier to add error handling to.

  The Performance Question

  In some cases, performance genuinely matters. Think high-frequency trading platforms, edge devices, or massive clusters. Bash scripts excel here because there’s almost zero startup overhead. Compare that to Python, which needs to load up the interpreter before it can start executing code. You’re going from microseconds to milliseconds, and sometimes that matters.

  But startup time is just one factor. When you compare the actual work being done, Python can pull ahead. String manipulation on structured data? Python wins. Parsing JSON, YAML, or any structured format? Python’s core libraries are written in C and optimized for exactly this kind of work. If you find yourself reaching for jq or yq in a Bash script, that’s a strong signal you should be using Python instead.

  The Guidelines People Throw Around

  You’ll see a common guideline online: if your script exceeds 100 lines of Bash, rewrite it in Python. But a lot of veterans in the industry feel like that cutoff is way too generous. Experienced engineers often put it at 50 lines, or even 25.

  Another solid indicator: nested if statements. Some people say “deeply nested” if statements, but let’s be honest, more than one level of nesting in Bash is already getting painful. Python handles complex branching logic far more gracefully, and you’ll thank yourself when you come back to maintain it six months later.

  Unit Testing Tells the Story

  You can do unit testing with Bash. BATS (Bash Automated Testing System) exists, and ShellCheck is useful as a lightweight linter for catching bad practices. But despite these tools, Python’s testing ecosystem is on another level entirely. It’s fully mature with multiple frameworks, excellent mocking capabilities, and the ability to simulate network calls, external APIs, or system binaries. Complex mocking that would be difficult or impossible in Bash is straightforward in Python.

  If your script needs solid testing or if it’s doing anything important, that’s a strong vote for Python.

  Bash’s Biggest Win: Portability

  So what does Bash actually win at? Portability. When you think about all the dependencies Python needs to run, Bash is the clear winner. You’re distributing a single .sh file. That’s it.

  With Python, you have to ask: Does Python exist on this machine? Is it the right version? You’ll need a virtual environment so you don’t pollute system Python. You need third-party libraries installed via a package manager; and please friends, remember that we don’t let friends use pip. Use Poetry or uv. Pip is so bad that I’d honestly argue that Bash not having a package manager is better than Python having pip. At least Bash doesn’t pretend to manage dependencies well.

  If you want something simple, something that can run on practically any Unix-based machine without setup, Bash is your answer. Even Windows can handle it these days through WSL, though you’re jumping through a few hoops.

  TLDR

  The decision is actually pretty straightforward:

  • Use Bash when you’re gluing together system commands, the logic is linear, it’s under 50 lines, and portability matters.
  • Use Python when you’re parsing structured data, need error handling, have branching logic, want proper tests, or the script is going to grow.

  If you’re reaching for jq, writing nested if statements, or the script is getting long enough that you’re losing track of what it does… it’s time for Python.

  I think in a future post we might look at when Go makes sense over Bash. There’s a lot to cover there about compiled binaries, but for now, hopefully this helps you make the call next time you’re wondering what to start your scripting with.

  Mar 10, 2026 DevOps Programming Python Bash Scripting

  Enjoyed this?

• Local Secrets Manager - Dotenv Encrypter

  I built a thing to solve a problem. It has helped me, maybe it will help you?

  It all starts with a question.

  Why isn’t there a good local secrets manager that encrypts your secrets at rest? I imagine a lot of people, like me, have a number of local applications. I don’t want to pay per-seat pricing just to keep my sensitive data from sitting in plaintext on my machine.

  I built an app called LSM Local Secrets Manager to solve that problem. The core idea is simple. Encrypt your .env files locally and only decrypt when you need them (sometimes at runtime).

  The Problem

  If you’ve got a bunch of projects on your machine, each with their own .env or .env.local file full of API keys you’re definitely not rotating every 90 days. Those files just sit there in plaintext. Any process on your system can read them. And with AI agents becoming part of our dev workflows, the attack surface for leaking secrets is only getting easier.

  ThE CLAW EnteRed ChaT

  I started looking at Doppler specifically for OpenCLAW. Their main selling feature is injecting secrets into your runtime so they never touch the filesystem. I was like, cool. Also I like that Doppler stores everything remotely. The only thing was the cost did not make sense for me right now. I don’t want to pay $10-20 a month for this set of features.

  So what else is there?

  Well GCP Secret Manager has its own set of issues.

  You can’t have duplicate names per project, so something as common as NODE_ENV across multiple apps becomes a more work than you want to deal with. Some wrapper script that injects prefixes? No thanks. I imagine there are a thousand and one homegrown solutions to solve this problem. Again, no thanks.

  So what else is there?

  You Find A Solution

  AWS Secret Manager

  A Problem for Solution Problem

  AWS IAM

  🫣

  I have a lot more to say here on this subject but will save this for another post. Subscribe if you want to see the next post.

  The Solution

  The workflow is straightforward:

  1. lsm init — Run this once from anywhere. It generates your encryption key file.
  2. lsm link <app-name> — Run this inside your project directory. It creates a config entry in ~/.lsm/config.yaml for that application.
  3. lsm import — Takes your existing .env or .env.local and creates an encrypted version.
  4. lsm clean — Removes the plaintext .env files so they’re not just sitting around.
  5. lsm dump — Recreates the .env files if you need them back.

  But wait there’s more.

  Runtime Injection with lsm exec

  Remember that cool thing I just told you about? Instead of dumping secrets back to disk, you run:

  lsm exec -- pnpm dev
  

  I feel like a family man from Jersey, who don’t mess around. Aye, you got, runtime injection. I got that.

  Well that’s lsm anyways. It can decrypt your secrets and inject them directly into the runtime environment of whatever command follows the --. Your secrets exist in memory for the duration of that process and nowhere else. No plaintext files hanging around for other processes to sniff.

  Credit to Doppler for the idea. The difference to what we are doing is your encrypted files stay local.

  What’s Next

  I’ve got some possible ideas of improvements to try building.

  • Separate encrypt/decrypt keys — You create secrets with one key, deploy the encrypted file to a server, and use a read-only key to decrypt at runtime. The server never has write access to your secrets.
  • Time-based derivative keys — Imagine keys that expire or rotate automatically.
  • Secure sharing — Right now you’d have to decrypt and drop the file into a password manager to share it. There’s room to make that smoother.

  I’m not sure how to do all of that yet, but we’re making progress.

  Why Not Just Use Doppler?

  There are genuinely compelling reasons to use Doppler or similar services. I mean bsides the remote storage, access controls and auditable logs. There’s a lot to love.

  For local development across a bunch of personal projects? I don’t think you should need a SaaS subscription to keep your secrets encrypted.

  LSM is still early, but the core workflow is there and it works.

  Give it a try if you’re tired of plaintext .env files scattered across your machine.

  

  Mar 9, 2026 DevOps Programming Tools security

  Enjoyed this?

• Python: If your CLI tool uses print() and gets called as a subprocess by Claude Code, the output now gets swallowed. The parent process captures it. Structured logging will fix it.

  Mar 8, 2026 Programming Claude-code Debugging

• The Only Code That Defies Entropy

  A developer explores the Second Law of Thermodynamics and finds that love is the only code capable of creating local order against universal entropy.

  Mar 7, 2026 Programming links code learning

• Structured concurrency & Go

  How Python and Kotlin provide structured concurrency out of the box while Go achieves the same patterns explicitly using errgroup, WaitGroup, and context.

  Mar 7, 2026 Programming Golang Python links

• How to Write a Good CLAUDE.md File

  Every time you start a new chat session with Claude Code, it’s starting from zero knowledge about your project. It doesn’t know your tech stack, your conventions, or where anything lives. A well-written CLAUDE.md file fixes that by giving Claude the context it needs before it writes a single line of code.

  This is context engineering, and your CLAUDE.md file is one of the most important pieces of it.

  Why It Matters

  Without a context file, Claude has to discover basic information about your project — what language you’re using, how the CLI works, where tests live, what your preferred patterns are. That discovery process burns tokens and time. A good CLAUDE.md front-loads that knowledge so Claude can get to work immediately.

  If you haven’t created one yet, you can generate a starter file with the /init command. Claude will analyze your project and produce a reasonable first draft. It’s a solid starting point, but you’ll want to refine it over time.

  The File Naming Problem

  If you’re working on a team where people use different tools: Cursor has its own context file, OpenAI has theirs, and Google has theirs. You can easily end up with three separate context files that all contain slightly different information about the same project. That’s a maintenance headache.

  It would be nice if Anthropic made the filename a configuration setting in settings.json, but as of now they don’t. Some tools like Cursor do let you configure the default context file, so it’s worth checking.

  My recommendation? Look at what tools people on your team are actually using and try to standardize on one file, maybe two. I’ve had good success with the symlink approach , where you pick your primary file and symlink the others to it. So if CLAUDE.md is your default, you can symlink AGENTS.md or GEMINI.md to point at the same file.

  It’s not perfect, but it beats maintaining three separate files with diverging information.

  Keep It Short

  Brevity is crucial. Your context file gets loaded into the context window every single session, so every line costs tokens. Eliminate unnecessary adjectives and adverbs. Cut the fluff.

  A general rule of thumb that Anthropic recommends is to keep your CLAUDE.md under 200 lines. If you’re over that, it’s time to trim.

  I recently went through this exercise myself. I had a bunch of Python CLI commands documented in my context file, but most of them I rarely needed Claude to know about.

  We don’t need to list every single possible command in the context file. That information is better off in a docs/ folder or your project’s documentation. Just add a line in your CLAUDE.md pointing to where that reference lives, so Claude knows where to look when it needs it.

  Maintain It Regularly

  A context file isn’t something you write once and forget about. Review it periodically. As your project evolves, sections become outdated or irrelevant. Remove them. If a section is only useful for a specific type of task, consider moving it out of the main file entirely.

  The goal is to keep only the information that’s frequently relevant. Everything else should live somewhere Claude can find it on demand, not somewhere it has to read every single time.

  Where to Put It

  Something that’s easy to miss: you can put your project-level CLAUDE.md in two places.

  • ./CLAUDE.md (project root)
  • ./.claude/CLAUDE.md (inside the .claude directory)

  A common pattern is to .gitignore the .claude/ folder. So if you don’t want to check in the context file — maybe it contains personal preferences or local paths — putting it in .claude/ is a good option.

  Rules Files for Large Projects

  If your context file is getting too large and you genuinely can’t cut more, you have another option: rules files. These go in the .claude/rules/ directory and act as supplemental context that gets loaded on demand rather than every session.

  You might have one rule file for style guidelines, another for testing conventions, and another for security requirements. This way, Claude gets the detailed context when it’s relevant without bloating the main file.

  Auto Memory: The Alternative Approach

  Something you might not be aware of is that Claude Code now has auto memory, where it automatically writes and maintains its own memory files. If you’re using Claude Code frequently and don’t want to manually maintain a context file, auto memory can be a good option.

  The key thing to know is that you should generally use one approach or the other. If you’re relying on auto memory, delete the CLAUDE.md file, and vice versa.

  Auto memory is something I’ll cover in more detail in another post, but it’s worth knowing the feature exists. Just make sure you enable it in your settings.json if you want to try it.

  Quick Checklist

  If you’re writing or revising your CLAUDE.md right now, here’s what I’d focus on:

  • Keep it under 200 lines — move detailed references to docs
  • Include your core conventions — package manager, runtime, testing approach
  • Document key architecture — how the project is structured, where things live
  • Add your preferences — things Claude should always or never do
  • Review monthly — cut what’s no longer relevant
  • Consider symlinks — if your team uses multiple AI tools
  • Use rules files — for detailed, task-specific context

  That’s All For Now. 👋

  Mar 6, 2026 AI Programming Claude-code Developer-tools

  Enjoyed this?

• aden-hive/hive: Outcome driven agent development framework that evolves

  Outcome driven agent development framework that evolves - aden-hive/hive

  Mar 2, 2026 Programming links agent platform