You missed the point and the sha-bang in attempt 1 which was 
#!/usr/bin/env rake, not ruby.

I understand what rake is doing, what I want is an executable rake file 
without having to explicitly run rake.  Thanks

Jason Roelofs wrote:
> Well, attempt 1 is merely defining the task, the task then has to be run,
> which is what's happening in Attempt 2.
> 
> When you type `rake` in the command line, what you are really doing is
> 
> rake default
> 
> Hopefully that explains what's going on.
> 
> Jason
> 
> On 10/25/06, John Pywtorak <jpywtora / calpoly.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I humbly come to you, because searching, mostly google, has failed to
>> produce a reference, or someone who has done this.
>>
>> We traditionally run Rakefile's using either
>> $ rake
>> or
>> $ rake -f my.rake
>> etc
>>
>> what if I wanted an executable script, say myscript, which is really a
>> rake task file, but runs as though it where run as above.
>> Attempt 1
>> #!/usr/bin/env rake
>> task :default do puts "Hello, Rake!" end
>> FAILED
>>
>> Attempt 2
>> #!/usr/bin/env ruby
>> task :default do puts "Hello, Rake!" end
>> Rake::Task[:default].invoke
>> SUCCESS
>>
>> So, is the latter really the best way?  While it works I worry that rake
>> is somehow not setup the same way if the this had been run the
>> traditional way.  Thanks
>>
>> -- 
>> Windows
>> Start Here
>> Frustrating Hanging Crashing
>> Blue Screen of Death
>> Reboot
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>