From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 17 20:26:13 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA0216A420 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:26:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: from mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.9]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 475EF13C457 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:26:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chuckr@chuckr.org) Received: (qmail 5122 invoked from network); 17 Dec 2007 20:26:12 -0000 Received: from april.chuckr.org (chuckr@[66.92.151.30]) (envelope-sender ) by mail7.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 17 Dec 2007 20:26:12 -0000 Message-ID: <4766DAD8.3030006@chuckr.org> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:23:52 -0500 From: Chuck Robey User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071107 SeaMonkey/1.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD Questions References: <200712141742.30001.cblasius@gmail.com> <4765008E.1000704@freemail.gr> <47658318.8060506@chuckr.org> <20071217054303.GA33846@demeter.hydra> In-Reply-To: <20071217054303.GA33846@demeter.hydra> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: csh programing book X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:26:13 -0000 Chad Perrin wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 02:57:12PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote: >> Actually, I like ksh better, if you are really going all out for a >> programming shell, but if you're really after a scripting language, why >> restrict yourself to shells? things like Python & Ruby knock hell out >> of both ksh and bash. That's hardly even arguable. Too bad there isn't >> a good friendly shell-like mode to Python. Ruby would be out there, you >> couldn't even think about using a OO based tool for a user shell, those >> things need to be thought out, and that's the antithesis of being a >> friendly shell. > > Considering I use Ruby's interactive interpreter, irb, all the time -- I > don't really agree that you couldn't make a good user shell from Ruby. A > couple of tweaks in the way irb works would make for one of the best user > shells I'd ever seen. All that's missing is an easier way to execute > external programs, as far as I can tell. > Well, I was only giving my personal opinion. I've never used irb, but it seems to me that using any sort of OO tool as a shell would be "cruel and unusual", but I guess it takes all kinds, and I certainly wouldn't prevent you from enjoying yourself, same as I'd expect from you to mine.