3 ms·
> I'd better spend my time writing a different shell. That is funny and shows tremendous lack of understading of shell complexity. Perhaps your own OS next ?
by majkinetor 4y ago
> I'd better spend my time writing a different shell.
That is funny and shows tremendous lack of understading of shell complexity. Perhaps your own OS next ?
- bheadmaster 4y agoI assume they meant "writing in a different shell". The literal comment indeed doesn't make much sense.
- crabbone 4y agoI answered this question a few comments above: no. I was correct the first time. My biggest problems with Unix shell as it is, and if I cannot change the OS interface, are process groups, handling of exit codes and using exit codes in boolean context. If I were to work on a shell alternative to standard Unix shell, I'd remove the reliance on system calls related to creating pipes and process groups and would do this in the shell to escape the wrong way it's currently done by the system. Another thought I have is re-designing the work with processes and their output in the way similar to Erlang's ports. I'm not sure this can be done in all instances, but I would definitely give it a try. There are other minor evils, like return vs exit that needs to be solved... but, I really don't have a plan for making my own shell, so all the above is just based on particular pain points I had with it over the years, so, I don't really plan on making my own shell. But, equally, and even more so, I have absolutely no intention to use PowerShell, especially because I'd have to maintain hundreds of unrelated pieces of code, each with its own versioning history and a huge compatibility matrix. That just sounds like insanely boring and unproductive way to spend my life.