A few suggestions for creating command line interfaces
Command-line interface, or CLI in brief, specifies how a user interacts with a program on the command line. Torsten Seemann wrote a good article on creating CLI. This blog post adds a few more suggestions.
1. Keep the backward compatibility of CLI as much as possible
Backward compatibility here means users can upgrade and run a tool without changing the command lines they used in the past. This implies we should not remove or change the meaning of an existing option. It is ok to add new options. Backward compatibility, in my opinion, is the most important factor in CLI design and outweighs all the following points.
2. Human-first: command lines are meant for a human to type
It is important to keep CLI simple such that a human can remember the basic syntax and type a command line without reading the full manual or looking back through the bash history. For this goal, the tool should only require indispensable input (e.g. input files) and it should set sensible default values good for general use cases.
What are good default values has to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. I only mention one example. A common parameter used by high-performance tools is the number of parallel threads. In my opinion, a tool should not attempt to use all available CPUs by default because this default behavior may greatly impact many users in a cluster environment. Some of my tools use 3 or 4 threads by default. Defaulting to one thread is perhaps more common.
Command-line tools are also invoked in shell scripts or workflow scripts. In this case, we do not repeatedly type command lines. An explicit and verbose CLI may help to reduce typos and is preferred. It is worth considering such use cases. Nonetheless, the human-first principle is still more important.
3. If possible, read/write a file as a data stream
With file streaming, we read or write a file without jumping back and forth
using something like
seek() calls. Streaming is essential to unix pipes and
will make the tool work nicely with others. By convention, it is also preferred
to support a single dash
- for standard input/output, but this is not that
important in unix as we can use
/dev/stdout as long as the
tool supports file streaming.
A corallary is not to guess the input/output file formats by file extensions because data streams do not have file extensions. We may use named pipe but it is awkward.
4. Print useful information to the standard error output
It would be good for a tool to print the version number and the full command line in use. I often find this is helpful when going back to old analysis. I recommend to print something like “Done!” when the tool finishes. This lets users know the tool has not crashed in the middle. Printing progress is also convenient for a long running job as users may get a rough estimate about how long the job will take.
All these messages should be printed to the standard error output, not to the standard output. The standard output is meant to be used for piping (see suggestion 3). In addition, in many languages, text outputted to the standard output is bufferred by default for efficiency. It may not be written to the output when the tool is interrupted. The standard error output is usually not bufferred and is more useful for logging and debugging.
5. Use a getopt-compatible library to parse command-line options
This is a minor point. The unix/GNU getopt convention allows both short options and long options with multiple variations (see this article for details). Most unix tools, except gcc, follow this convention. The standard libraries in many languages also support it. A tool adopting different behaviors will increase the chance of misuses. Some may argue the unix convention is confusing but breaking the convention is worse.
blog comments powered by Disqus