2 ms·

> The only problem with PowerShell is that you need to write C# (or any other .NET language of course) if you want to create a real cmdlet What you say was tru

by useerup 11y ago

> The only problem with PowerShell is that you need to write C# (or any other .NET language of course) if you want to create a real cmdlet What you say was true for PowerShell 1.0. Since 2.0 you have been able to create cmdlets and modules through scripting. An "advanced function" with [CmdletBinding] attribute is a full-featured cmdlet. Now at version 5.0, PowerShell even has native syntax for creating classes and enums. > The other, general problem with cmdlines/shells under Windows is the fact that they all work very differently than terminals that worked with type-writers 40 years ago Not sure I'm following. The straight PowerShell engine is the most basic (typewriter-like) shell. But if you think in terms of support for terminal control characters - like VT220 - you'd be right. However, that is per specification not part of PowerShell but rather part of the console/shell process hosting the engine. The engine does indeed feature a number of hooks to make rich interaction possible. That is why the same engine can be used in the (admittedly) rather basic console "command prompt" of Windows pre-10 as well as with the ISE and Windows 10's not wuite so embarrassing "command prompt".

klibertp 11y ago
> What you say was true for PowerShell 1.0. Ok, I said I used it many years ago :) Thanks, it's good to know. About the console/terminal emulation: PowerShell has way saner architecture in this regard. I wasn't clear enough, what I wanted to say is that on Linux we have terminal emulators which try their best to emulate (hence the name) physical hardware from ages ago. I was both impressed and seriously disturbed when I read this: http://www.linusakesson.net/programming/tty/ http://www.linusakesson.net/programming/tty/ In short: > In present time, we find ourselves in a world where physical teletypes and video terminals are practically extinct. Unless you visit a museum or a hardware enthusiast, all the TTYs you're likely to see will be emulated video terminals — software simulations of the real thing. But as we shall see, the legacy from the old cast-iron beasts is still lurking beneath the surface. PowerShell simply ignores all the legacy cruft and doesn't even try to be compatible with 1940-era hardware. Which is, in my opinion, better and a sound technical decision, which resulted in much better architecture. The problem is that most Linux cmd-line apps expect to work under terminal emulators, not inside a modern environment PS provides.

by useerup 11y ago

klibertp 11y ago

> What you say was true for PowerShell 1.0. Ok, I said I used it many years ago :) Thanks, it's good to know. About the console/terminal emulation: PowerShell has way saner architecture in this regard. I wasn't clear enough, what I wanted to say is that on Linux we have terminal emulators which try their best to emulate (hence the name) physical hardware from ages ago. I was both impressed and seriously disturbed when I read this: http://www.linusakesson.net/programming/tty/ http://www.linusakesson.net/programming/tty/ In short: > In present time, we find ourselves in a world where physical teletypes and video terminals are practically extinct. Unless you visit a museum or a hardware enthusiast, all the TTYs you're likely to see will be emulated video terminals — software simulations of the real thing. But as we shall see, the legacy from the old cast-iron beasts is still lurking beneath the surface. PowerShell simply ignores all the legacy cruft and doesn't even try to be compatible with 1940-era hardware. Which is, in my opinion, better and a sound technical decision, which resulted in much better architecture. The problem is that most Linux cmd-line apps expect to work under terminal emulators, not inside a modern environment PS provides.