4 ms·
> So what I'm poking at is that while bash isn't a great tool for interfacing with the service manager, or registry, or policy frameworks and the like (SQL, def
by uk_programmer 6y ago
> So what I'm poking at is that while bash isn't a great tool for interfacing with the service manager, or registry, or policy frameworks and the like (SQL, definitely), powershell is not a general purpose command processor and text manipulator. And on UNIX, whether you like that philosophy or not, that's all you need. I would never want to use a powershell script to move and rename file structures with some rules and variables.
I can manipulate text fine with Powershell without having to use other small programs that may or may not exist on the system. I can also interface with parts of the operating system sensibly. I was reading and writing text files a lot easier with Powershell than I ever did with Bash.
> Look, typed OO pipelines sound like a good idea, but the negative side is this. For example, to deal with the registry, you have to have purpose built library like https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsoft.. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsoft.... that someone needs to write and then everyone has to know. This has to be done for every kind of interface in windows. This is just as complex as Pythons standard libraries or writing C or C++ Win32 code.
You seem to think that this is somehow a negative. I think you should be able to rely on an abstractions. I would rather rely on a well defined and understood interface than writing my own script to manipulate a file. The former is obviously less error prone than the other. Any claim to the contrary is a nonsense.
> But back to the article. It's not valid to just presumptively state like a fact that one is better than the other as the argument. And it's really not valid to compare such different tools head-to-head when it's the whole underlying philosophies of their associated ecosystems that are so different.
Yes one is sane and the other one isn't. I've heard most of these (bogus) arguments before. I hate to sound rude, but I honestly fed up of hearing it.
- fargle 6y ago> Yes one is sane and the other one isn't Agreed! Clearly you mean UNIX/Linux is the sane one, right? Before you fly into a hissy fit and say the UNIX toolkit theory is insane please learn, read, and respect a little history. So all the famous papers, IEEE, ACM, written by folks like DMR and Thompson are "bogus" arguments, right??? These guys might have done things in ways you don't grok, ways you don't like, or ways you think you know how to do better. The UNIX approach, like all complex things, has pros and cons. But until anything you or microsoft has built has stood up for 50 years, been academically published and cited, maybe won a couple Turing awards and Presidential medals, don't try defend an argument with a simple "it's bogus" or "insane" or "nonsense".
- uk_programmer 6y ago> Agreed! Clearly you mean UNIX/Linux is the sane one, right? Before you fly into a hissy fit and say the UNIX toolkit theory is insane please learn, read, and respect a little history. So all the famous papers, IEEE, ACM, written by folks like DMR and Thompson are "bogus" arguments, right??? Seems you are going into the hissy fit. I also don't care about your arguments from authority. Programming against a well defined abstraction will be better than piping things around and easier for people to understand. > These guys might have done things in ways you don't grok, ways you don't like, or ways you think you know how to do better. The UNIX approach, like all complex things, has pros and cons. But until anything you or microsoft has built has stood up for 50 years, been academically published and cited, maybe won a couple Turing awards and Presidential medals, don't try defend an argument with a simple "it's bogus" or "insane" or "non This is the Pavlovian response to any criticism of the great unix way. Again all of this is an argument from authority and people used Unix because it was good enough and available. Lets not pretend it was successful because it was so great.
- fargle 6y agoYou love the word Pavlovian don't you? I'm not making an argument to authority. I'm saying you are dismissing, without any valid argument at all, years of reasoned academics and experienced and careful engineering. So what's your argument? You're level abstract is "better" because it just clearly is. And you're tired of hearing another viewpoint? I think you are very naive and I don't see you how will gain experience if you don't wish to listen to anything you don't already understand!
- uk_programmer 6y ago> So what's your argument? You're level abstract is "better" because it just clearly is. And you're tired of hearing another viewpoint? Maybe you are dense. I have heard all these talking points before, many, many, many times. I do not find them convincing. If you regurgitate copy-pasta from 4chan's /g board I am not going to be interested. > I think you are very naive and I don't see you how will gain experience if you don't wish to listen to anything you don't already understand! I've been mucking about with computers since the BBC Micro-computer. I have been developing professionally for 15 years. Don't patronise me. I am actually very very cynical.