6 ms·

I understand your specific security concerns, but the whole line is offensive. Certainly not the fault of the Chocolatey authors, but this is what I'd call a ma

• mattgreenrocks 15y ago
  Good thing we have bash: a paragon of both simplicity and readability!
  • norswap 15y ago
    Not sure if sarcasm or zealotry.
• contextfree 15y ago
  Except for the "iex" this isn't really Powershell specific - it's just instantiating a .NET framework object and calling a method on it. It might as well be C#.
  • lucisferre 15y ago
    No it might as well not be. One of the big complaints about powershell is how unclear the command line syntax for tools tends to be. A big part of developing a good C# API (or any for that matter) is clarity, readability and understanding. One of the reason fluent APIs are popular. Bad is bad, don't blame .NET or C# for that. And yeah I realize you can come up with an ugly command line example in just about anything. But powershell tends to be one of the uglier ones out there.
    • ferventcoder 15y ago
      We started with a much more involved set of steps to install and people kept wanting a one liner for the install. It's a tradeoff
    • contextfree 15y ago
      Huh? It's calling DownloadString on a System.Net.WebClient. That IS a C# API. I'm not sure what you're talking about.
• kprobst 15y ago
  That being different from using wget or curl in bash or easy_install how again?
  • latch 15y ago
    wget http://bit.ly/psChocInstall vs ((new-object net.webclient).DownloadString("http://bit.ly/psChocInstall"))
    • doty 15y ago
      If you happen to have wget, sure. Windows doesn't, by default. It is far more likely that the machine will have powershell, and if it does, it has the .net frameworks. But, with wget, the line is iex (wget -qO- http://bit.ly/psChocInstall) which isn't too bad.
  • ferventcoder 15y ago
    That is just a way to install chocolatey. After you install, running installs is 'cinst somepackagename'