3 ms·
> 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 ma
by 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.