bun repl

[DetachHead]

What is the problem this feature will solve?

want to be able to quickly run a code snippet without creating a file

What is the feature you are proposing to solve the problem?

bun repl command, or even just bun on its own opens the repl (like in node)

(i know this is is mentioned in #159 but it didn't have its own issue. feel free to close if you don't want seperate issues for items on the roadmap)

What alternatives have you considered?

No response

[Pedromdsn]

Literally one of the 2 things I need to replace node with bun.
This is an image in material icons.

[cassepipe]

If that ever happens, would it be possible to add an option for the bun repl to:

1. Use GNU readline (used by bash, gdb and others) while having access to completions.
2. Have an option to open the repl in our preferred $EDITOR buffer. For example oh-my-zsh has an option to open the zsh command line in a vim buffer
3. Have a full fledge vim mode such zsh and fish have

Any combination of those solutions would make a repl much more usable than they generally are.

rlwrap does exist but then you lose completions, tough choice to make

[veilm]

It's supported now with bun repl?
I don't see any way to enable vi bindings though; it doesn't seem to use readline

[KaKi87]

Hello,
Any news on this ?
Thanks

[paperclover]

its been on my mind recently to rewrite bun repl in native code (it is currently an alias to bun x bun-repl which is written in javascript)

Use GNU readline (used by bash, gdb and others) while having access to completions.

in my opinion readline shouldnt be used because completions ought to be powered by the javascript engine, and i just think that the act of reading input can be implemented about a thousand times better.

Have an option to open the repl in our preferred $EDITOR buffer.

I think this is a reasonable idea, but it borders on the point that you may just want to use an actual file with bun run.

I don't see any way to enable vi bindings though

this would be interesting to support

[cassepipe]

Using GNU readline would have the advantage of unlocking a vim mode (that's not the best around but hey it's there for us who really enjoy vim modes in line editors)

[KilianB]

When reimplementing repl it would be great if non interactive terminal sessions are supported (#5832) .

Currently I explore the possibility to create a ts notebook prototype similar to jupyter notebooks where a repl session is spawned in a child process.

const runtime= Bun.spawn({
  cmd: ["bun", "repl"],
  stdin: "pipe",
  stdout: "pipe",
});

This currently fails: [!] Failed to start REPL interface! Is the command running in an interactive terminal?

[jordan-castro]

Any news on this? I'm trying to provide a interactive terminal for my programming language that compiles into JS. I got it working with node thanks to their '-i' flag option. I've been wanting to try with bun like:

        p = open(`bun repl`, "r+") # this is where it fails
        write(p, command_with_marker)
        flush(p)
        out = readline(p.out)

[KilianB]

I forked repl and it was a matter of commenting out a single line that checked for the interactive part. As far as I could tell everything else still worked without any trouble.
It was as easy as following where the error was thrown and slipping the of check

[jordan-castro]

Hm, I'd rather not fork the bun repl. I imagine that would work but the idea is that users can use the bun on their own machine without any change.

[TomasHubelbauer]

Since this is now on the updated Bun roadmap and presumably will enter the implementation phase soonish (#159), I'd like to vouch specifically for this part of the original ask:

or even just bun on its own opens the repl (like in node)

As in being able to run just the bun command with no subcommand or arguments to enter the REPL, Node-style.

Node compatibility here is IMO very important and being able to drop into a REPL just by calling bun a-la Node would be much appreciated.