Re: Properties

["Thomas Løcke" <tl@ada-dk.org>]

On 2010-12-04 20:53, Shark8 wrote:
> C-shell ->  irksome.
> Having to migrate between C- and BASH-shells ->  more irksome.
> Sometimes using a different shell is not an option, as policy may
> forbid such 'foreign'/non-approved software.


My point was that one should not expect portability between shells, just
as one does not expect Java to compile using an Ada compiler.

Shells are mere tools. There are several to choose from. Users have
freedom to choose which of these they use, and which they ignore.

And if policy forbids using a specific shell, then that's no different
than a "no Ada" policy, which obviously makes it difficult to compile
an Ada program, but said policy does not detract from Ada as a 
programming language.

You can argue that you don't like the shells available to *nix, but that
is not the fault of *nix itself.


> Why not?
> Isn't the job of the kernel to facilitate the use of the computer's
> resources? If files are considered resources* then checking that they
> are used properly cannot but be a part of the kernel's job.
>
> *The *nix philosophy of "everything is a file" mandates that resources
> (as a part of *everything*) are files.


My view of a kernel is a piece of software that handles processes,
devices and memory. Systems calls are made available via an API of
sorts.

It does not include understanding what an .odf or .xsl file is. Such
associations belong, IMHO, in the chosen environment, be it KDE, BASH,
Fluxbox, XFCE, Gnome or what have you.

But then again, my understanding might be wrong. I will not claim to be
a kernel expert.


> And here I thought the goal of the os was to make the machine usable
> to human-users, not force them to act like machines.


There are excellent help facilities in KDE (and probably also in Gnome),
that extends beyond the man pages. These are easy to navigate using the
familiar point and click interface.

So the fact that there's a "raw" man system at the bottom of the ocean
does not mean that fancier interfaces does not exist closer to the
average computer user.

Personally I like the man system. Others may hate it with a passion, and
luckily they have something like the excellent KDE help system, which
encompasses the entire KDE environment (with pictures and everything)
_and_ a point and click interface to the man pages.

And everything is of course searchable using a simple and familiar
text field.

Also I do not feel like a machine when I'm using the man pages, just as
I don't feel like a machine when I'm using GPS. These are just tools
that help me get a job done, and as with every tool there's a certain
learning curve.


>>> Error codes? In *nix programs may or may not use them... (some
>>> programs return 0/success when errors were encountered) which makes
>>> them less than useless.
>>
>> Hardly the fault of *nix, just as the abundance of horrible software
>> for Windows cannot be blamed on Windows itself.
>
> Actually it is the fault of unix, via C, which mandates that the main
> subprogram return an error-code.


I agree with you that it's not a very good system, but it's still not
the fault of *nix that programmers make programs that return 0/success
when errors are encountered. That behavior is solely the responsibility
of the programmer(s).

No matter what you do, bad programmers will find ways to mess up a
system.


> A better system would be one where programs are run and exceptions are
> thrown on errors (the exception could be handled in-program or
> propagated out). Something, conceptually similar to this:


I agree. That would indeed be a better system.

-- 
Regards,
Thomas L�cke

Email: tl at ada-dk.org
Web: http:ada-dk.org
IRC nick: ThomasLocke