From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f891f,84341d9bfd06c34b X-Google-Attributes: gidf891f,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,7fc5f2ed2567dae4 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,7fc5f2ed2567dae4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-30 10:35:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!panix!panix3.panix.com!not-for-mail From: jbrock@panix.com (John Brock) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.pl1 Subject: Re: Shell Central Date: 30 Aug 2002 13:35:58 -0400 Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp. Message-ID: References: <42f85d82.0208290655.549f1e67@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix3.panix.com X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1030728958 21598 166.84.1.3 (30 Aug 2002 17:35:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 17:35:58 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.misc:3687 comp.lang.ada:28601 comp.lang.pl1:2986 Date: 2002-08-30T13:35:58-04:00 List-Id: In article , Christopher Browne wrote: >In the last exciting episode, peter@abbnm.com (Peter da Silva) wrote:: >> In article <42f85d82.0208290655.549f1e67@posting.google.com>, >> Ed Davis 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