3 ms·
you just made the claim that people who prefer real programming languages are the reason for bad shells. if there is a false dichotomy, that would be it. sure i
by em-bee 3y ago
you just made the claim that people who prefer real programming languages are the reason for bad shells. if there is a false dichotomy, that would be it. sure it is possible to have both, but the focus of the shell needs to be on interactivity. i don't at all care if the shell has a good programming language. i only care about good interactive features.
there is a lot of overlap though, as a good interactive shell does benefit from a better language syntax and from things like types, arrays, etc.
- coldtea 3y ago>you just made the claim that people who prefer real programming languages are the reason for bad shells No, I made the claim that people who think shells and "real (sic) programming languages" are distinct categories, and can't be otherwise, and use it support the idea that current shells are fine, are the reason for bad shells. >sure it is possible to have both, but the focus of the shell needs to be on interactivity As if those are contradictory goals? A shell can have a much much better real programming language AND BE interactive. >i don't at all care if the shell has a good programming language. i only care about good interactive features. Hence my false dichotomy complaint.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]