4 ms·
Not really - you don't have an invisible memory buffer that's just sitting there that you need to load with a program in order to use it. Then you type "run" an
by russellbeattie 6y ago
Not really - you don't have an invisible memory buffer that's just sitting there that you need to load with a program in order to use it. Then you type "run" and it magically pulls the program out of the ether and runs it. And the command line isn't automatically, and exclusively, used as an ed-like line editor.
I get that all shells are programmable, but booting right into a programming language REPL? You need a different mental model of what's happening under the hood for it to make sense.
- ziotom78 6y agoOTOH, I remember that the first thing I did when, as a 10-year-old boy, I got a VIC-20 (my very first computer) was to type 10 + 10 and "20" appeared after I pressed the Enter key. Today this would not work with Bash, yet at the time the computer's answer seemed pretty logical to me.
- the_af 6y agoThere modern day expression-oriented CLIs where this would work, too :)
- the_af 6y agoIt absolutely didn't seem strange to me back then, so I guess we disagree. The memory buffer isn't invisible, you can list it and modify it. Lots of Basics worked like that back them, to me it's understandable without a second thought -- much like a REPL today is. In fact we designed a console/REPL just like this in my day job. It's superb because the shell to the computer is an interactive programming language. If this puzzles you, a Smalltalk environment would blow your mind :P Some people argue computers ought to go back to that: you boot up, you get your programming environment and file and device manipulation interface ready, and it's all the same thing.