@samalba 

> Could you post share a gist how it would looks like?

Sure: https://gist.github.com/dmp42/10587421

> Would you pipe all the JS inside the interpreter? If that's the case, I am honestly fine with my small shell script :-)

Nope :) I'm crazy, true - just not *batshit* crazy :-)


To sum-it up, the benefits of the suggested approach are:

 * no extra file: `./bin/hipache` and `node ./bin/hipache` keep acting the same way - less confusion
 * one line change
 * no shell script monkeying / portability headache with readlink and cd (that's (already) tricky to get right)

Downsides:

 * obviously not obvious :-)
 * other?

@thaJeztah agreed - same goes for `--always-compact`, etc - things done in hipache these days are quite un-holly :-)

About this specifically, that's a no-op (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#colon), used to hide the shell exec statement from node (by outputting a js comment).

This is (common?) practice when you need to have some script past the shebang, and still have the intended parser to be able to consume the file.

I've seen it in the wild in python for example (and for node as well):
```
#!/bin/sh
''''exec python -u -- "$0" "$@" # '''
# vi: syntax=python
```

What do you think?

Either way, let's merge this and get this to master as well so that we can get back to 0.3 :-)