Show HN: ut – Rust based CLI utilities for devs and IT

[ksdme9]

Hey HN,

I find myself reaching for tools like it-tools.tech or other random sites every now and then during development or debugging. So, I built a toolkit with a sane and simple CLI interface for most of those tools.

For the curious and lazy, at the moment, ut has tools for,

- Encoding: base64 (encode, decode), url (encode, decode)

- Hashing: md5, sha1, sha224, sha256, sha384, sha512

- Data Generation: uuid (v1, v3, v4, v5), token, lorem, random

- Text Processing: case (lower, upper, camel, title, constant, header, sentence, snake), pretty-print, diff

- Development Tools: calc, json (builder), regex, datetime

- Web & Network: http (status), serve, qr

- Color & Design: color (convert)

- Reference: unicode

For full disclosure, parts of the toolkit were built with Claude Code (I wanted to use this as an opportunity to play with it more). Feel free to open feature requests and/or contribute.

[simonw]

Slightly odd suggestion: package it up as both a Python and an NPM module - both just thin wrappers around the combined binary - and then people within those ecosystems will be able to run:

  uvx ut md5 ...

Or:

  npx ut md5 ...

To execute it without having to figure out cargo or how to add a Rust binary to their path.

I've seen a few tools do things like this recently, it's a pretty interesting pattern. I believe there's tooling in the Python/Rust world that makes compiling the different binary wheels relatively easy using GitHub Actions.

[rsyring]

If you know you will use it often, uv has `uv tool install ...`. So, after the first `uv tool install ut` you can just run `ut md5 ...` or whatever. Don't need to keep using uvx.

uv also has a couple commands I throw in a systemd unit[1] to keep these tools updated:

  uv self update
  uv tool upgrade --all

1: https://github.com/level12/coppy/blob/main/systemd/mise-uv-u...

[larusso]

Interesting perspective. I mean the issue exists with any ecosystem. See nix who has to wrap down to the lib level everything under the sun to make their package system usable for all kinds of use cases. But they need to do this because of the deterministic nature of the system. Brew on the other hand discouraged packaging tools that are available from other package managers. Don’t know if this is still the case. I feel a bit uncertain about this. It would mean that a tool should not only strive to be included in all major repositories of Linux distributions along with winget, brew and Mac ports etc (which is a tough ask). Now they should also publish to npm, pypy, ruby gems etc as well? I feel something is taking a wrong turn here.

[mirashii]

cargo-dist will get you the npm one for free. They've got pypi support planned as well but don't have it yet, though they can also generate standard curl | sh installers and all too.

[pepa65]

I will personally never want to install uvx or npx.

Another suggestion is to enable cargo-binstall, it allows just to install cargo binaries conveniently, and cargo-binstall is just a single-binary to install itself.

[emanuelez]

+1 for this great suggestion

[xpe]

I can understand why people would find `ut` convenient. That said, I would caution against trying to include too much functionality. What is too much? I don't have a clear idea on this yet.

But I would probably argue that including HTTP functionality is going too far. Why? Because there are already amazing tools dedicated to this already. On the client side, see `xh` [1]. On the server side, see `miniserve` [2]. Both have approximately 7K stars on GitHub.

It seems wiser to let specialized projects focus on a particular functional area; this is better for users and less work for maintainers.

[1]: https://github.com/ducaale/xh

[2]: https://github.com/svenstaro/miniserve

[Jotalea]

I agree. this tool feels like an all-in-one swiss knife. granted, it is useful. But it goes directly against one of the UNIX core values which is "do one thing and do it well". as well, including too much functionality in one single package will eventually bloat it, and there are many examples of this happening (windows, systemd, etc.).

[ndyg]

I maintain a Rust-based CLI HTTP server that embeds Nushell. It’s a handy little Swiss-army knife that’s replaced Nginx and Caddy for my personal projects.

You can serve a folder of static assets like this:

http-nu :3021 '{|req| .static "www" $req.path}'

https://github.com/cablehead/http-nu

[nvader]

Very neat.

Although philosophically I prefer the unix approach of "do one thing and do it well", I really admire this tool. I think it might be the fact that the one thing this does well is curating a set of functions for a particular profile of developer. My story is someone doing web focused full stack development?

It might be worth doing a survey of your users to see what they use ut for and what areas you should focus on next.

[01HNNWZ0MV43FF]

I think for packaging it's okay to "have" lots of things that individually "do" one thing.

The important part is that the user controls the entry points. It's more Unixy to allow someone to decode audio from one pipe to another than to only allow them to play a file to a speaker.

Consider that Debian "does" lots of things because it has a kernel, hardware abstractions, a userland, a package manager, and often a GUI and web browser. But it also "does" none of those because it's just a convenient and useful wrapper to publish all the other tools, which you can still call upon individually

[egorfine]

> ut – Rust based CLI utilities for devs and IT

In this title you tell exactly zero information about what your tools actually do, but somehow find it important to mention the language they're written in.

[maximilianthe1]

To capture attention of Rust purists

[klardotsh]

Thanks for disclosing your use of GenAI, that kind of transparency is nice to see up front. On that note though, I took a random example (`calc.rs`) and noticed there was no unit or integration testing validating the parsers or etc. did what was expected of them, or that the end results were correct. Are tests for these tools planned? I get sketched out a bit when I see GenAI code with no automated validations, but I really want to like this tool because it fills such an interesting niche :)

[ksdme9]

Hey, yeah, fair concern. Some tools already have tests, but, I do plan on adding it to all of them.

[heavensteeth]

The first thing I checked was how hashing is implemented and two things stand out to me:

1. Input must be valid UTF-8. 2. stdin is read to EOF instead of being read incrementally

Neither are ideal and can make ut unfit for a fair few use cases.

[Narushia]

Would be cool if this also had a `retry` sub-command, for running any commands with an exponential backoff retry logic. Similar to these Rust tools:

https://github.com/demoray/retry-cli

https://github.com/rye/eb

[BrouteMinou]

When importing a library, it becomes part of your project, therefore it becomes your responsibility to ensure that the imported code is safe and sound.

I am seeing the list of dependencies, and even without looking at the transitive ones, I am sure you didn't review any of those, nor will properly maintain that huge list.

That's a supply chain ticking bomb in my book.

I like Rust, but most projects look like kindergarten collage with no regards to security.

[gdotdesign]

DevToys (https://github.com/DevToys-app/DevToys) has a CLI version like this.

[renshijian]

This project cleverly combines formal verification with AI ethics! Using mathematical certainty to constrain AI's uncertainty is like adding a transparent audit window to a "black box." Wadler would surely smile knowingly upon seeing this semantic ledger specification—theory has finally been transformed into verifiable practice From philosophical aphorism to verifiable fact, this is a brilliant path

[dxxvi]

As it is a utility toolkit, I'd like to have:

- the Web & Network section expanded: the copyparty features (github.com/9001/copyparty) and curlie (github.com/rs/curlie).

- compress/decompress features with password: it doesn't need to use the best compress algorithm, gzip is good enough.

[xpe]

On what basis are new features included?

Has the creator thought about the definition of "done"? Will it grow indefinitely like a katamari ball?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katamari

[ksdme9]

I don't have a strict idea of "done" for ut. But, I am not keen on adding increasing complex things to it either. It's purpose is convenience not exhaustiveness.

[icar]

Why would a user of these tools care about what language they are written in?

[dolmen]

On HNH it matters to get votes.

[rohan_]

is this stuff not pretty easy to do with python?

``` python -c "import base64; print(base64.b64encode('$INPUT_STRING'.encode('utf-8')).decode('utf-8'))" ```

[landr0id]

I love typing python commands that are 10x longer than a shorthand.

Yes it's easy to set up an alias or shell command or whatever, but that's besides the point :p

[ksdme9]

You don't even have to go that far, `base64` is a coreutil (https://github.com/coreutils/coreutils/blob/ebfd80083b4fe4ae...).

The point of ut is not to replace or invent new tooling. It is meant to be a set of tools that are simple, self exploratory and work out of the box with sane defaults. So, essentially, something that you don't have to remember syntax for or go through help/man pages everytime you want to use it.

[klardotsh]

If you can remember all of that off the top of your head and find it ergonomic to type out, then sure. But much like how I prefer someone else to do my content syncing as an ergonomic appliance rather than using FTP + curlftpfs + a VCS [1], I quite like this idea of a focused toolbox (written in a language that compiles to native code) and welcome it rather than having to store these massive snippets in my head (or write shell wrappers for them).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

[dolmen]

Also with Go:

  $ go run github.com/dolmen-go/goeval@master 'fmt.Println(base64.StdEncoding.EncodeToString([]byte(os.Args[1])))' foobar
  Zm9vYmFy

[dolmen]

Many of this utilities are bundled with the "openssl" tool:

  $ echo -n foobar | openssl base64 -e
  Zm9vYmFy

[baq]

You can send a heredoc into as in a single line of shell, too.

[lukevp]

How about uuidv7? That’s catching on, as it’s got improved sortability / clustering behavior in DBs

[BerislavLopac]

> Data Generation: uuid (v1, v3, v4, v5)

The new versions 7 and 8 are really a must these days, especially v7.

[ksdme9]

Someone contributed v7 already!

[Aperocky]

This is literally anti-unix.

[cozzyd]

  $ which ut
  /usr/local/games/ut/ut

[ksdme9]

I checked for conflicts but didn't go all the way to check for games. What is that anyway?

[guessmyname]

Why is everything in the same binary? Why not multiple binaries, one for each function? That way people can install only the ones they need, a-la Unix tools: do only one thing and do it well.

I also have the exact same tools but written in Go. Rust would be a nice upgrade (lower footprint) but to keep them all in the same binary is a bit silly.

[simonw]

The single binary thing reminds me of BusyBox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox

Sometimes it can be quite convenient to grab a single binary that does a whole bunch of useful stuff in one package.

[teiferer]

Also, lots of the ut functions already exist as decades old unix tools.

[JasonSage]

To me the biggest upside would be terminal completion and discovery via help text. Sure you can always bounce to a search engine and bounce back, but I can imagine cases where you want a toolkit in front of you that you know how to use when your focus is not on memorizing commands.

This could be great for students without sysadmins needing to lodge complaints.

[articulatepang]

I don't think it's that silly. BusyBox packages a bunch of utilities in a single binary. It amortizes fixed costs: a single binary takes less space than 30 binaries that each do one tiny thing.

These are small bits of code, and the functionality is interrelated. The entire thing feels like a calculator, or awk, and seems reasonable to put in one binary.

The Unix philosophy doesn't actually say anything about whether different tools should live in the same binary. It's about having orthogonal bits of functionality and using text as the universal interface. BusyBox is just as Unix as having all the tools be different binaries.

[thayne]

Probably for the same reasons that uutils/coreutils uses a single binary. Specifically:

- it reduces the total install size, since common code, including the standard library, is only included once, rather than copied for each executable

- it makes installation easier on some platforms, since you just have to install a single executable, instead of a bunch of executables

[dgacmu]

Amusingly, if you look historically, it's also a traditional approach to reduce total binary size - a bunch of small utilities were all Sim links to a single binary, which conditioned on argv[0] to figure out what to do.