Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:23:52 -0500 From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@chuckr.org> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: csh programing book Message-ID: <4766DAD8.3030006@chuckr.org> In-Reply-To: <20071217054303.GA33846@demeter.hydra> References: <200712141742.30001.cblasius@gmail.com> <4765008E.1000704@freemail.gr> <47658318.8060506@chuckr.org> <20071217054303.GA33846@demeter.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4766DAD8.3030006>