3 ms·
I get the feeling Powershell is exactly what the author has in mind when they say >Historically, operating systems that have fanciful structured interfaces bet
by hiAndrewQuinn 4y ago
I get the feeling Powershell is exactly what the author has in mind when they say
>Historically, operating systems that have fanciful structured interfaces between programs have been left in the dust by Unix, because Unix maximizes flexibility by favoring the lowest-common-denominator interface, which is the string.
at the end, there.
I adore what Posh gives me over bash. I've also seen many people over the years try to use it as Windows's "shittier Bash" without noticing that doing complicated things with strings here is so painful because _you're not supposed to do complicated things with strings._
The readability of Posh is a direct consequence of people learning to work with its stricter, but more composable interfaces.
- deafpolygon 4y ago> Windows's "shittier Bash" That's how I tried to use it in the first year of using Windows (after switching back). Once I let go of my entrenched habits after years of Linux, I was able to do much more with PowerShell.
- HeavyStorm 4y agoI mean, there's some beauty to having all output as string. It's more predictable. But soon you're jumping through so many hoops to get what you want, it's terrible. I've been learning PowerShell ever since it was launched, but it took me many years to realize it's actually better than bash. Sometimes you have two learn tô stop fighting the tool and embrace it instead. I still hate the naming schema, though.
- deafpolygon 4y ago> there's some beauty to having all output as string Yeah, I suppose. :) In a way, it's also antiquated.