3 ms·

> Powershell has some improvements on top of the Unix model because it saw the benefits of the Unix model and the costs of it. yes, the pattern is to have some

> Powershell has some improvements on top of the Unix model because it saw the benefits of the Unix model and the costs of it. yes, the pattern is to have some internal normalized generic-enough data structure on which pipes will operate. Then all you need is the ability to convert non-normalized input sources into it, and the same with the output formats. BTW: the UNIX pipes forks the processes, but Windows' CMD.com was executing the stages in the pipeline sequentially, not sure about PowerShell. > the gui world has nothing like the productivity of either system. I think Tcl/Tk is kind of GUI glue. It's very easy to build a GUI front-end for an existing CLI commands / scripts. EDIT: also COM/OLE, ActiveX, JavaBeans were promising code re-use for GUIs

jsmith45 5y ago
cmd.exe most certainly does execute the pipeline in parallel, much as unixes do. The old MS-DOS command.com would not (since only single process at a time execution was even supported). I have no idea if the Windows 9X/ME version of command.com worked the same way as dos or not, and I don't feel like firing up a VM to find out. Now cmd.exe has maintained a lot of stupidity, and even many obvious bugs from the old command.com executable, in order to ensure that positively ancient script still run as expected. (This includes horribleness like the cmd.exe code not being able to read ahead in the .bat file, in order to support old self-modifying .bat file tricks!). But sequential-only pipelines are not part of the stupidity that was kept in place.