6 ms·

Not many young people know Perl or Tcl (or even lisp for that matter). >> The point of shell is that it interoperates freely with all programs and all programs

Not many young people know Perl or Tcl (or even lisp for that matter). >> The point of shell is that it interoperates freely with all programs and all programs share a language. Also doesn't mean people should stop trying to come up with these new shells. May be some "new" shell will catch up and tomorrow's "all" programs will be compatible with that shell. For example, now on Mac OS X, now ZSH is the default shell.

moonchild 6y ago
I explicitly included zsh. The point is not the language of the shell itself; that has never been the point. The point is that zsh interoperates with the other programs on your system in a way that crush doesn't and can't.
- viraptor 6y ago
  > a way that crush doesn't and can't What do you mean by can't? If it misses some mode of interaction, that can be always added.
  - ori_b 6y ago
    Consistent behavior when piping through all commands. A lack of modes of operation to consider. Simplicity.
    - viraptor 6y ago
      Simplicity exists on more than a single dimension. Choosing one column from "ls" output for example is not simple, bordering on impossible using the consistent behaviour of standard pipes. Sometimes the inconsistent solution will be simpler by moving the complexity to the choice of the mode of interaction. Sometimes not.
      - ori_b 6y ago
        Maybe a shell is the wrong tool for that job, and hiding the modes that the language is operating in complicates things.
      - ratboy666 6y ago
        You are correct. It is all about how you think about things. "ls" lists files. Sure. Simple interactive command. But, thinking about this, "echo " also lists files. "ls" provides information about files. Sure. Simple interactive command. But, "stat" specifically provides information. So, I would reach for stat --format "%n %a" To get name and octal permissions. You are correct, and wrong at the same time. Easy enough to accomplish -- but using * instead of ls. Note that the "space in filename" becomes the big issue (use %N in stat format). So your conclusion is 100% correct. Thank you for your post and insight
      - moonchild 6y ago
        > Choosing one column from "ls" output for example is not simple, bordering on impossible using the consistent behaviour of standard pipes. ls -l | awk '{print $3}' ls -l | cut -f 3 -d ' '
oblio 6y ago
It only took Zsh 29 years (initial release year: 1990, adoption in Mac OS: 2019) to become the default shell on one of the major nixes, while being POSIX compatible and having just an extension layer on top. I wouldn't hold my breath for something else to replace sh/bash as the default shell on the major nixes within this century. Pessimist? More like realist :-)
- robin_reala 6y ago
  That wasn’t even driven by zsh’s actual benefits, but by the fact that bash changed to GPL3. If it had continued on GPL2 we’d 100% still have bash as a default.
  - Fnoord 6y ago
    And the fact Apple doesn't like GPLv3.
    - TheDesolate0 6y ago
      Well, they hate open source in general. Apple is the, well, Apple of the 90's. God. I remember the 80's. Apple was the Hackers' computer! (well, if you didn't have access to a major corp or uni machine room). They were all into DIY! and getting kids to code! Bill Gates back then was all "neh! mine!" He was a SERIOUS tool! God he used to just fucking scream at people. awful. OMG. Young Bill Gates sucked donkey balls. Paul was paul. I kinda felt bad for him, actually. I dunno. then something happened. maybe it was the whole 6502 thing. memories are fuzzy, but Apple changed in what seemed like overnight.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Most other major UNIXes, before of BSD/Linux takeover weren't on sh, rather tsch and ksh.
drbojingle 6y ago
when he says Perl or Tcl I think he means general purpose languages. It doesn't have to be Perl, or Lisp or Tcl, those are examples.
_jal 6y ago
> Not many young people know Perl or Tcl There are more young people who know Perl or Tcl or Lisp than know Crush. I've never understood this reasoning - "Hardly anyone knows X. Let's replace it with something nobody knows." At most, you're making an argument about a lack of sunk cost. > May be some "new" shell will catch up and tomorrow's "all" programs will be compatible with that shell Think of it like transitioning to life in a wheelchair. You can't "catch up" with your house - it just wasn't designed for wheelchair use. Renovating all the narrow corridors, random steps, tight angles and vertical reaches probably costs more than rebuilding. In this comparison, the mobility mode is your shell.
- Riverheart 6y ago
  "Hardly anyone knows X. Let's replace it with something nobody knows." Because there's a value proposition. Just like TCL, Perl, and Lisp had value propositions over other available languages. It's fine if you don't see the value proposition in Crush but progress sometimes forces us to learn new things instead of sticking with what we have.
  - TheDesolate0 6y ago
    Yes, but this is the role of other languages. Not the shell. I use Bash. I love bash. I code in bash for work daily. But I would never use it beyond simple stuff! That's not it's job. It's job is to play nicely with all my tiny little tools, allowing me to string them all together into compound tool statements, allowing me to use the OS and small apps to make the powerful tools WITHOUT needing to reinvent the wheel (use a real programming language). This is the roll of the shell.
- jwilber 6y ago
  Crush has been around < 1 year. Perl has been around for 32. Of course more people know Perl. If I’m being honest, you’re not adding anything constructive at all here - it seems you’re in a competition with yourself as to how much you can degrade Crush for whatever reason. You act like it’s a choice between Crush and Perl. People don’t have to learn Crush. People don’t have to learn Perl. Will picking between the two have any substantial effect on one’s career outcomes these days? Probably not, as candidates will have already learned the important languages for getting a job anyway.
mywittyname 6y ago
> Not many young people know Perl or Tcl (or even lisp for that matter). I don't know perl and I'm not young, but I do understand and appreciate the role perl -e plays as an extension of bash. When I run into an issue where I need more than bash, but less than python, I'll search around SO for a perl -e command for what I need. This is often how people decide to learn a tool: they have a problem for which it is the best solution. They get some exposure to the capability and slowly expand on their knowledge.
- esoterae 6y ago
  I think that means you're using SO as a tool..?
  - Shared404 6y ago
    Don't most of us? That doesn't mean he's not using Perl as well.
heresie-dabord 6y ago
Many young people don't know history, science, other languages, or even the grammar of their native language. That is why we teach. The "ecosystem" of programming languages is healthy. There are many options, some to master, some to consider. But not knowing how to use a tool -- especially a widely-used and powerful tool -- is no badge of honour or discernment.
- cat199 6y ago
  > That is why we teach. but what if people don't know how to learn? instead of getting wrapped up in all of this 'knowledge preservation' nonsense, shouldn't we just mimic what they are already doing and assume it to be better, because the activity occurs in a year number that is higher than the previous behavior pattern? now that would be real progress. or, not.
  - heresie-dabord 6y ago
    Sarcasm duly noted. (o; Societal results sadly noted.
pjmlp 6y ago
Nor do they know that before bash takeover of the UNIX world via BSD and GNU/Linux clones, it was just another shell among many others, with tsch and ksh also having a place on the table.

moonchild 6y ago

I explicitly included zsh. The point is not the language of the shell itself; that has never been the point. The point is that zsh interoperates with the other programs on your system in a way that crush doesn't and can't.

viraptor 6y ago
> a way that crush doesn't and can't What do you mean by can't? If it misses some mode of interaction, that can be always added.
- ori_b 6y ago
  Consistent behavior when piping through all commands. A lack of modes of operation to consider. Simplicity.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    Simplicity exists on more than a single dimension. Choosing one column from "ls" output for example is not simple, bordering on impossible using the consistent behaviour of standard pipes. Sometimes the inconsistent solution will be simpler by moving the complexity to the choice of the mode of interaction. Sometimes not.
    - ori_b 6y ago
      Maybe a shell is the wrong tool for that job, and hiding the modes that the language is operating in complicates things.
    - ratboy666 6y ago
      You are correct. It is all about how you think about things. "ls" lists files. Sure. Simple interactive command. But, thinking about this, "echo " also lists files. "ls" provides information about files. Sure. Simple interactive command. But, "stat" specifically provides information. So, I would reach for stat --format "%n %a" To get name and octal permissions. You are correct, and wrong at the same time. Easy enough to accomplish -- but using * instead of ls. Note that the "space in filename" becomes the big issue (use %N in stat format). So your conclusion is 100% correct. Thank you for your post and insight
    - moonchild 6y ago
      > Choosing one column from "ls" output for example is not simple, bordering on impossible using the consistent behaviour of standard pipes. ls -l | awk '{print $3}' ls -l | cut -f 3 -d ' '

oblio 6y ago

It only took Zsh 29 years (initial release year: 1990, adoption in Mac OS: 2019) to become the default shell on one of the major nixes, while being POSIX compatible and having just an extension layer on top. I wouldn't hold my breath for something else to replace sh/bash as the default shell on the major nixes within this century. Pessimist? More like realist :-)

robin_reala 6y ago
That wasn’t even driven by zsh’s actual benefits, but by the fact that bash changed to GPL3. If it had continued on GPL2 we’d 100% still have bash as a default.
- Fnoord 6y ago
  And the fact Apple doesn't like GPLv3.
  - TheDesolate0 6y ago
    Well, they hate open source in general. Apple is the, well, Apple of the 90's. God. I remember the 80's. Apple was the Hackers' computer! (well, if you didn't have access to a major corp or uni machine room). They were all into DIY! and getting kids to code! Bill Gates back then was all "neh! mine!" He was a SERIOUS tool! God he used to just fucking scream at people. awful. OMG. Young Bill Gates sucked donkey balls. Paul was paul. I kinda felt bad for him, actually. I dunno. then something happened. maybe it was the whole 6502 thing. memories are fuzzy, but Apple changed in what seemed like overnight.
pjmlp 6y ago
Most other major UNIXes, before of BSD/Linux takeover weren't on sh, rather tsch and ksh.

drbojingle 6y ago

when he says Perl or Tcl I think he means general purpose languages. It doesn't have to be Perl, or Lisp or Tcl, those are examples.

_jal 6y ago

> Not many young people know Perl or Tcl There are more young people who know Perl or Tcl or Lisp than know Crush. I've never understood this reasoning - "Hardly anyone knows X. Let's replace it with something nobody knows." At most, you're making an argument about a lack of sunk cost. > May be some "new" shell will catch up and tomorrow's "all" programs will be compatible with that shell Think of it like transitioning to life in a wheelchair. You can't "catch up" with your house - it just wasn't designed for wheelchair use. Renovating all the narrow corridors, random steps, tight angles and vertical reaches probably costs more than rebuilding. In this comparison, the mobility mode is your shell.

Riverheart 6y ago
"Hardly anyone knows X. Let's replace it with something nobody knows." Because there's a value proposition. Just like TCL, Perl, and Lisp had value propositions over other available languages. It's fine if you don't see the value proposition in Crush but progress sometimes forces us to learn new things instead of sticking with what we have.
- TheDesolate0 6y ago
  Yes, but this is the role of other languages. Not the shell. I use Bash. I love bash. I code in bash for work daily. But I would never use it beyond simple stuff! That's not it's job. It's job is to play nicely with all my tiny little tools, allowing me to string them all together into compound tool statements, allowing me to use the OS and small apps to make the powerful tools WITHOUT needing to reinvent the wheel (use a real programming language). This is the roll of the shell.
jwilber 6y ago
Crush has been around < 1 year. Perl has been around for 32. Of course more people know Perl. If I’m being honest, you’re not adding anything constructive at all here - it seems you’re in a competition with yourself as to how much you can degrade Crush for whatever reason. You act like it’s a choice between Crush and Perl. People don’t have to learn Crush. People don’t have to learn Perl. Will picking between the two have any substantial effect on one’s career outcomes these days? Probably not, as candidates will have already learned the important languages for getting a job anyway.

mywittyname 6y ago

> Not many young people know Perl or Tcl (or even lisp for that matter). I don't know perl and I'm not young, but I do understand and appreciate the role perl -e plays as an extension of bash. When I run into an issue where I need more than bash, but less than python, I'll search around SO for a perl -e command for what I need. This is often how people decide to learn a tool: they have a problem for which it is the best solution. They get some exposure to the capability and slowly expand on their knowledge.

esoterae 6y ago
I think that means you're using SO as a tool..?
- Shared404 6y ago
  Don't most of us? That doesn't mean he's not using Perl as well.

heresie-dabord 6y ago

Many young people don't know history, science, other languages, or even the grammar of their native language. That is why we teach. The "ecosystem" of programming languages is healthy. There are many options, some to master, some to consider. But not knowing how to use a tool -- especially a widely-used and powerful tool -- is no badge of honour or discernment.

cat199 6y ago
> That is why we teach. but what if people don't know how to learn? instead of getting wrapped up in all of this 'knowledge preservation' nonsense, shouldn't we just mimic what they are already doing and assume it to be better, because the activity occurs in a year number that is higher than the previous behavior pattern? now that would be real progress. or, not.
- heresie-dabord 6y ago
  Sarcasm duly noted. (o; Societal results sadly noted.

pjmlp 6y ago

Nor do they know that before bash takeover of the UNIX world via BSD and GNU/Linux clones, it was just another shell among many others, with tsch and ksh also having a place on the table.