4 ms·

Windows PowerShell? That's abominable piece of managerial-driven crap? Well... It rocks, in the sense of rock falling on the genitals of it's users... Sorry fo

by xte 8y ago

Windows PowerShell? That's abominable piece of managerial-driven crap? Well... It rocks, in the sense of rock falling on the genitals of it's users... Sorry for being rude but well... There are many aspects of ancient OSes that does not work well, mostly because time passes and no one really advance BUT if you want a good comparison try provisioning Windows with PS and NixOS with NixOps, after a month tell the difference.

DonHopkins 8y ago
Have you ever typed "more configure" instead of "./configure"? Really? Are you seriously advocating that crap?
- xte 8y ago
  I do not understand what you say... Yes, I use in the past GNU autotools and I see the enormous amount of text they produce, not much different by the amount of crap any RAD IDE produce alongside a project but you talking about PowerShell, an Windows IaC solution, not a software development tool to help portability. I'm respond: compare it to another GNU/Linux IaC solution, NixOS/NixOps. If you compare them you may notice: - they are both built-in in their respective OSes - they are both a language and a framework to configure/deploy/provisioning systems, local and in LAN - they have both a DSL for that Well, NixOS realize easily a semi-unbreackable OS you can easily replicate anywhere, PS realize a MONSTER that only to learn in you need weeks, and even after so you can't really replicate Windows, you can at maximum provision an already deployed Windows instance. I do not see how GNU Autotools fit in that comparison.
  - DonHopkins 8y ago
    I can't really make out what you're trying to say, either. I'm asking you if you think that file oriented shells like sh, csh or bash (or any Unix shell short of Perl, Python, Emacs or node.js) are reasonable scripting languages for plugging together software components, the way PowerShell is. For example, PowerShell lets you pass around an array of filenames, and doesn't blow up if there are spaces in the file names the way the shell does. PowerShell enables software components to export and consume rich well defined APIs that take and return actual objects and data structures, not just strings of text that you then have to parse on your own. Even though it would be extremely useful, Unix shells are absolutely terrible at parsing text and manipulating data structures, and have to call out to other weak programs like sed and awk to do even the most rudimentary parsing, pattern matching and string manipulation. Historically and until recently, Unix shells weren't even able to add two numbers: you actually had to run another program called "expr" to do that, and forking another process and parsing its string output is ASTRONOMICALLY less efficient that executing an ADD instruction. Unix shell scripting is pathetically wasteful and inefficient, and a huge pain in the ass to program, read and maintain. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/unix_commands/expr.htm https://www.tutorialspoint.com/unix_commands/expr.htm The following is an example involving boolean expressions ( |- or operator ): $ expr length "abcdef" "<" 5 "|" 15 - 4 ">" 8 output: 1 Everything is NOT a file. You shouldn't have to fork another process and parse a file to add two numbers, or put double quotes around your logical operators for that matter. Plan 9 got it dead wrong. And that's why nobody uses Plan 9, and why modern Unix isn't anything like it. I get it that you're in a reflexive tizzy about how evil and corporate everything from Microsoft automatically is in your book. But I'm afraid you simply don't know what you're talking about. Since you're not able to talk about PowerShell rationally, then what about Python or Emacs? They're real programming languages, not lame mish-mashes of haphazard syntax and inconsistent semantics like Unix shells, and they don't view everything as a one-dimensional file like Plan 9 insists. They have actual libraries with real APIs and honest to god objects and data structures, not just files. In Emacs Lisp, files actually have their own local variables, containing any Lisp objects or s-expressions. http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html#SEC19 http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html#SEC19 And if you really continue to insist that everything should be represented as one-dimensional file, then how to you explain ioctl and fcntl and setsockopt? The official error code returned by ioctl sums up my point about Plan 9's fatal mistake: ENOTTY: NOT A TYPEWRITER. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_a_typewriter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_a_typewriter

by xte 8y ago

DonHopkins 8y ago

Have you ever typed "more configure" instead of "./configure"? Really? Are you seriously advocating that crap?

xte 8y ago
I do not understand what you say... Yes, I use in the past GNU autotools and I see the enormous amount of text they produce, not much different by the amount of crap any RAD IDE produce alongside a project but you talking about PowerShell, an Windows IaC solution, not a software development tool to help portability. I'm respond: compare it to another GNU/Linux IaC solution, NixOS/NixOps. If you compare them you may notice: - they are both built-in in their respective OSes - they are both a language and a framework to configure/deploy/provisioning systems, local and in LAN - they have both a DSL for that Well, NixOS realize easily a semi-unbreackable OS you can easily replicate anywhere, PS realize a MONSTER that only to learn in you need weeks, and even after so you can't really replicate Windows, you can at maximum provision an already deployed Windows instance. I do not see how GNU Autotools fit in that comparison.
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  I can't really make out what you're trying to say, either. I'm asking you if you think that file oriented shells like sh, csh or bash (or any Unix shell short of Perl, Python, Emacs or node.js) are reasonable scripting languages for plugging together software components, the way PowerShell is. For example, PowerShell lets you pass around an array of filenames, and doesn't blow up if there are spaces in the file names the way the shell does. PowerShell enables software components to export and consume rich well defined APIs that take and return actual objects and data structures, not just strings of text that you then have to parse on your own. Even though it would be extremely useful, Unix shells are absolutely terrible at parsing text and manipulating data structures, and have to call out to other weak programs like sed and awk to do even the most rudimentary parsing, pattern matching and string manipulation. Historically and until recently, Unix shells weren't even able to add two numbers: you actually had to run another program called "expr" to do that, and forking another process and parsing its string output is ASTRONOMICALLY less efficient that executing an ADD instruction. Unix shell scripting is pathetically wasteful and inefficient, and a huge pain in the ass to program, read and maintain. https://www.tutorialspoint.com/unix_commands/expr.htm https://www.tutorialspoint.com/unix_commands/expr.htm The following is an example involving boolean expressions ( |- or operator ): $ expr length "abcdef" "<" 5 "|" 15 - 4 ">" 8 output: 1 Everything is NOT a file. You shouldn't have to fork another process and parse a file to add two numbers, or put double quotes around your logical operators for that matter. Plan 9 got it dead wrong. And that's why nobody uses Plan 9, and why modern Unix isn't anything like it. I get it that you're in a reflexive tizzy about how evil and corporate everything from Microsoft automatically is in your book. But I'm afraid you simply don't know what you're talking about. Since you're not able to talk about PowerShell rationally, then what about Python or Emacs? They're real programming languages, not lame mish-mashes of haphazard syntax and inconsistent semantics like Unix shells, and they don't view everything as a one-dimensional file like Plan 9 insists. They have actual libraries with real APIs and honest to god objects and data structures, not just files. In Emacs Lisp, files actually have their own local variables, containing any Lisp objects or s-expressions. http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html#SEC19 http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html#SEC19 And if you really continue to insist that everything should be represented as one-dimensional file, then how to you explain ioctl and fcntl and setsockopt? The official error code returned by ioctl sums up my point about Plan 9's fatal mistake: ENOTTY: NOT A TYPEWRITER. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_a_typewriter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_a_typewriter