3 ms·

Please, don't mention non-shell languages. Using python or ruby as every day shell ? Good luck with that. Using them as scripting languages is way more sane. P

Please, don't mention non-shell languages. Using python or ruby as every day shell ? Good luck with that. Using them as scripting languages is way more sane. PowerShell has only one environment where it is any good: .NET-mostly OS which has no non-obscure scripting language built-in .NET is now cross platform so that argument is moot. Regarding a workable shell, PowerShell is sub-par to even rustier ksh Epic argument. Nothing I can say about it. ... except... I am not in the buisnis to be a human text parser.

dozzie 11y ago
> Please, don't mention non-shell languages. Why not? Bash serves two purposes: being a programming language and being a user-facing shell. In the former it may be worse than PowerShell, but for anything bigger nobody uses shell anyway. At interacting with human operator, on the other hand, PowerShell is lacking even compared to old, unmaintained ksh. Compared to modern shells, like bash or zsh, it doesn't stand a chance. The programming language's semantics don't matter that much on this ground, as long as they are more or less sane. > .NET is now cross platform so that argument is moot. It was nominally since Mono started. And guess what? Almost nobody uses .NET on Linux or FreeBSD for their project. PowerShell is good mostly when you need to access .NET internals, which doesn't happen on Linux. It only happens on Windows. > Regarding a workable shell, PowerShell is sub-par to even rustier ksh > Epic argument. Nothing I can say about it. > ... except... I am not in the buisnis to be a human text parser. I would ask which word was too difficult to read, but I think we won't enjoy further discussion/argument.
- majkinetor 11y ago
  >Why not? Because shell language must be designed specifically, to allow fluent every day work on ad hoc things. Mainstream languages are not. There were number of attempts so far to shell'ize some of them - ruby and rush (https://goo.gl/mouvrj https://goo.gl/mouvrj), python with pipes lib and so on but none of them succeeded. > It was nominally since Mono started. No, that was poor mans substitution. We are talking here about full MS product that behaves the same on all platforms, not similar. > I would ask which word was too difficult to read, but I think we won't enjoy further discussion/argument. You don't inspire either.

dozzie 11y ago

> Please, don't mention non-shell languages. Why not? Bash serves two purposes: being a programming language and being a user-facing shell. In the former it may be worse than PowerShell, but for anything bigger nobody uses shell anyway. At interacting with human operator, on the other hand, PowerShell is lacking even compared to old, unmaintained ksh. Compared to modern shells, like bash or zsh, it doesn't stand a chance. The programming language's semantics don't matter that much on this ground, as long as they are more or less sane. > .NET is now cross platform so that argument is moot. It was nominally since Mono started. And guess what? Almost nobody uses .NET on Linux or FreeBSD for their project. PowerShell is good mostly when you need to access .NET internals, which doesn't happen on Linux. It only happens on Windows. > Regarding a workable shell, PowerShell is sub-par to even rustier ksh > Epic argument. Nothing I can say about it. > ... except... I am not in the buisnis to be a human text parser. I would ask which word was too difficult to read, but I think we won't enjoy further discussion/argument.

majkinetor 11y ago
>Why not? Because shell language must be designed specifically, to allow fluent every day work on ad hoc things. Mainstream languages are not. There were number of attempts so far to shell'ize some of them - ruby and rush (https://goo.gl/mouvrj https://goo.gl/mouvrj), python with pipes lib and so on but none of them succeeded. > It was nominally since Mono started. No, that was poor mans substitution. We are talking here about full MS product that behaves the same on all platforms, not similar. > I would ask which word was too difficult to read, but I think we won't enjoy further discussion/argument. You don't inspire either.