4 ms·
I like these attempts at innovating the shell. Hardcore Unix users will say it is practically impossible to replace universal text streams and sh. But what if w
by hestefisk 6y ago
I like these attempts at innovating the shell. Hardcore Unix users will say it is practically impossible to replace universal text streams and sh. But what if we had said the same thing before Unix wasn’t a thing? Then we wouldn’t have come this far today.
One advantage projects like Nushell and Crush have is that they have second-mover advantage after seeing what PowerShell didn’t get right. For instance whilst PowerShell is highly consistent, it’s also very verbose as a result (unless you tweak it to mimic bash with aliases and then you might as well use bash anyway). Another example is that, whilst the idea of objects in pipes is theoretically interesting, it creates a lot of complexity in creating meaningful pipes (it’s a lot faster to do xargs over a series of words rather than remembering how to do a for loop in pwsh). Maybe these people are striking the right balance with the flexibility of text and the rigour of tables / columns.
- majkinetor 6y agoAll nonsence. 2nd mover ? This would be like 100th mover... a testament its very hard to maintain such shell which is the reason nobody else succeded so far. This is repeated ad infunum by the anti posh crew, while good arguments are presented against such attitude all the time. Also, xargs is simply awful compared to what posh gives and awful without any comparrison.
- hestefisk 6y agoxargs is quite powerful and, most importantly, simple.
- majkinetor 6y agoNot simpler then PowerShell way. And not even close in power.