* Re: Shell Central [not found] ` <aknp40$s7k@web.eng.baileynm.com> @ 2002-08-30 13:41 ` Christopher Browne 2002-08-30 17:35 ` John Brock 2002-09-02 0:45 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Christopher Browne @ 2002-08-30 13:41 UTC (permalink / raw) In the last exciting episode, peter@abbnm.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:: > In article <42f85d82.0208290655.549f1e67@posting.google.com>, > Ed Davis <ed_davis2@yahoo.com> wrote: >> How about BUSH! >> >> http://www.vaxxine.com/pegasoft/bush.html >> >> It is sort of like BASH, but uses a subset of Ada as the >> scripting language. > > Doesn't seem terribly well adapted to the UNIX paradigm of pipes and > filters. It's more like a scripting language that defaults to "exec" > for unknown commands. Useful, but not really a shell. BUSH may be very simply characterized: It's about writing "scripts" in Ada. Parallel it with REXX, which essentially provides a simplified version of PL/1. BUSH takes things a _bit_ further than REXX; it's apparently sufficiently similar to the Parent Language that it is expected to be relatively easy to modify scripts to make them compilable into plain Ada code. -- (concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@acm.org") http://cbbrowne.com/info/scripting.html Sturgeon's Law: 90% of *EVERYTHING* is crud. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Shell Central 2002-08-30 13:41 ` Shell Central Christopher Browne @ 2002-08-30 17:35 ` John Brock 2002-08-30 20:42 ` Peter da Silva 2002-09-02 0:45 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John Brock @ 2002-08-30 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <aknsli$1kb8df$1@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote: >In the last exciting episode, peter@abbnm.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:: >> In article <42f85d82.0208290655.549f1e67@posting.google.com>, >> Ed Davis <ed_davis2@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> How about BUSH! >>> >>> http://www.vaxxine.com/pegasoft/bush.html >>> >>> It is sort of like BASH, but uses a subset of Ada as the >>> scripting language. >> Doesn't seem terribly well adapted to the UNIX paradigm of pipes and >> filters. It's more like a scripting language that defaults to "exec" >> for unknown commands. Useful, but not really a shell. >BUSH may be very simply characterized: > > It's about writing "scripts" in Ada. > >Parallel it with REXX, which essentially provides a simplified version >of PL/1. > >BUSH takes things a _bit_ further than REXX; it's apparently >sufficiently similar to the Parent Language that it is expected to be >relatively easy to modify scripts to make them compilable into plain >Ada code. BUSH looks far more elaborate than the sort of thing I was thinking of, and I agree that it is not really a shell (nor is REXX for that matter, although it would make a good shell for VM/CMS, if VM/CMS had shells). What about file expansion for example? After browsing the tutorial I didn't see how to do something like "ls *.txt". The language I have in mind would *feel* like a shell, and share a number of conventions with the bourne shell family, even though some things would be quite different. But BUSH does seem to be an example of something I have always thought should be more common: a language intended from the beginning to give user the option of either compiling or interpreting. IBM actually did have a REXX compiler on VM/CMS, which speeded up execution by a factor of up to 10. At the time I used it the compiler didn't support the "interpret" instruction, but I believe that was added later. Anyway, this is such a useful feature that I wonder why it isn't more common? -- John Brock jbrock@panix.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Shell Central 2002-08-30 17:35 ` John Brock @ 2002-08-30 20:42 ` Peter da Silva 2002-08-30 22:26 ` John Brock 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Peter da Silva @ 2002-08-30 20:42 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <akoadu$l64$1@panix3.panix.com>, John Brock <jbrock@panix.com> wrote: > The language I have in mind would *feel* like a shell, and share > a number of conventions with the bourne shell family, even though > some things would be quite different. Have you had a look at the Plan 9 shell, "rc". It has a lot of feel of the bourne shell, but the scripting is quite different and a lot more regular. It's also designed to be used cleanly from a window system, for example the default prompt is a ";" so you can almost always cut-and-paste a few lines of commands and they'll do the right thing. -- I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-' Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U` ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Shell Central 2002-08-30 20:42 ` Peter da Silva @ 2002-08-30 22:26 ` John Brock 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: John Brock @ 2002-08-30 22:26 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <akolbm$595@web.eng.baileynm.com>, Peter da Silva <peter@abbnm.com> wrote: >In article <akoadu$l64$1@panix3.panix.com>, >John Brock <jbrock@panix.com> wrote: >> The language I have in mind would *feel* like a shell, and share >> a number of conventions with the bourne shell family, even though >> some things would be quite different. >Have you had a look at the Plan 9 shell, "rc". It has a lot of feel >of the bourne shell, but the scripting is quite different and a lot >more regular. > >It's also designed to be used cleanly from a window system, for example >the default prompt is a ";" so you can almost always cut-and-paste a few >lines of commands and they'll do the right thing. Interesting! I hadn't looked at this carefully, and I should. It's still not exactly what I want, but it's closer than anything I have run into so far. They're still developing Plan 9! How nice! -- John Brock jbrock@panix.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Shell Central 2002-08-30 13:41 ` Shell Central Christopher Browne 2002-08-30 17:35 ` John Brock @ 2002-09-02 0:45 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 2002-09-02 18:39 ` John W. Kennedy 2002-09-04 2:07 ` John Brock 1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz @ 2002-09-02 0:45 UTC (permalink / raw) In <aknsli$1kb8df$1@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>, on 08/30/2002 at 01:41 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> said: >Parallel it with REXX, which essentially provides a simplified >version of PL/1. No. The semantics of REXX are very different from those of PL/I, and trying to use it as if it were a simplified PL/I will lead to some nasty bugs. IMHO that was a mistake; it would have been better had they syntax been a lot different of the semantics a lot closer. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2, Team OS/2, Team PL/I Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Shell Central 2002-09-02 0:45 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz @ 2002-09-02 18:39 ` John W. Kennedy 2002-09-03 17:27 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 2002-09-04 2:07 ` John Brock 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John W. Kennedy @ 2002-09-02 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw) Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > No. The semantics of REXX are very different from those of PL/I, and > trying to use it as if it were a simplified PL/I will lead to some > nasty bugs. IMHO that was a mistake; it would have been better had > they syntax been a lot different of the semantics a lot closer. REXX was designed chiefly to be non-astonishing to non-programmers. The PL/I similarities are no more significant than the similarities between C and PERL. -- John W. Kennedy Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue! -- Kazuo Koike, "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Shell Central 2002-09-02 18:39 ` John W. Kennedy @ 2002-09-03 17:27 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz @ 2002-09-03 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw) In <3D73B04C.4030207@attglobal.net>, on 09/02/2002 at 02:39 PM, "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> said: >REXX was designed chiefly to be non-astonishing to non-programmers. >The PL/I similarities are no more significant than the similarities >between C and PERL. The syntax of REXX is superficially a lot closer to PL/I than the syntax of PERL is to C. And regardless of the intent, the effect is to trip up the PL/I programmer because of the things that look similar but are very different. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2, Team OS/2, Team PL/I Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Shell Central 2002-09-02 0:45 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 2002-09-02 18:39 ` John W. Kennedy @ 2002-09-04 2:07 ` John Brock 2002-09-04 6:21 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: John Brock @ 2002-09-04 2:07 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <3d72b4c2$1$fuzhry+tra$mr2ice@news.patriot.net>, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: > >In <aknsli$1kb8df$1@ID-125932.news.dfncis.de>, on 08/30/2002 > at 01:41 PM, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> said: >>Parallel it with REXX, which essentially provides a simplified >>version of PL/1. >No. The semantics of REXX are very different from those of PL/I, and >trying to use it as if it were a simplified PL/I will lead to some >nasty bugs. IMHO that was a mistake; it would have been better had >they syntax been a lot different of the semantics a lot closer. Can you give us some examples? What mistakes could have been corrected, and how might REXX have been improved by being less different from PL/1 than it is. I'm not arguing the point, I'm just curious. -- John Brock jbrock@panix.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Shell Central 2002-09-04 2:07 ` John Brock @ 2002-09-04 6:21 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 2002-09-04 23:37 ` Peter Flass 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz @ 2002-09-04 6:21 UTC (permalink / raw) In <al3pt6$7ph$1@panix3.panix.com>, on 09/03/2002 at 10:07 PM, jbrock@panix.com (John Brock) said: >Can you give us some examples? The ones that seem to cause the most confusion are abutment, CALL, SIGNAL and uninitialized variables. >What mistakes could have been >corrected, and how might REXX have been improved by being less >different from PL/1 than it is. IMHO it would have been cleaner to carry over the control structures of PL/I intact. Where I may trigger a flame war is that I like abutment and the ability to use uninitialized variables as though they were constants of the (upper case) same value as the name. I consider them to be reasonable differences, despite the confusion. Others consider them to be bad form. "NOVALUE" suggests that I may be in the minority. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT Atid/2, Team OS/2, Team PL/I Any unsolicited commercial junk E-mail will be subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. I mangled my E-mail address to foil automated spammers; reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: Shell Central 2002-09-04 6:21 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz @ 2002-09-04 23:37 ` Peter Flass 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Peter Flass @ 2002-09-04 23:37 UTC (permalink / raw) I definitely agree about CALL. I still try to avoid CALL in favor of function references because the syntax is such a bad joke. Abutment, not having a similarity in PL/I didn't cause any problems for me; I mostly use || anyhow, and explicitly concatenate desired spaces. SIGNAL is different enough that I don't have a problem with it. I do wish it had been GOTO when used for that purpose though; I don't think SIGNAL is clear enough on what it's doing. My biggest problem is having to put a comma at the end of lines being continued. I'm not used to it, and it's hard to see on the screen, especially when what's being continued is a comma-separated list. I'd rather see semicolons as line delimiters, or '\' for continuation as in C, or almost anything else. "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote: > > In <al3pt6$7ph$1@panix3.panix.com>, on 09/03/2002 > at 10:07 PM, jbrock@panix.com (John Brock) said: > > >Can you give us some examples? > > The ones that seem to cause the most confusion are abutment, CALL, > SIGNAL and uninitialized variables. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-09-04 23:37 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- [not found] <akg8rt$aq1$1@panix3.panix.com> [not found] ` <42f85d82.0208290655.549f1e67@posting.google.com> [not found] ` <aknp40$s7k@web.eng.baileynm.com> 2002-08-30 13:41 ` Shell Central Christopher Browne 2002-08-30 17:35 ` John Brock 2002-08-30 20:42 ` Peter da Silva 2002-08-30 22:26 ` John Brock 2002-09-02 0:45 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 2002-09-02 18:39 ` John W. Kennedy 2002-09-03 17:27 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 2002-09-04 2:07 ` John Brock 2002-09-04 6:21 ` Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz 2002-09-04 23:37 ` Peter Flass
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox