looks like Microsoft has something really cool here

[CaptainPinko]

every once and a while microsoft comes up with something really cool (weren't they the first to integrate the file manager w/ a web browser? thats the rason why i use KDE over gnome despite mozilla better look and over less buggyness)

well here it is, a command shell that seems to fit nicely with a high-level language!

http://weblogs.asp.net/jnadal/posts/34413.aspx

now if only sun could step up and integrate java into a shell, that be awesome. imagine being able to use the same command shell in windows as on *nix, that'd be cool...

[Satanic Atheist]

First off, file aliases are possible.
As we have always enjoyed in Linux... Wonder where THAT idea came from?

Similar to the unix pipe, you can do this with MSH (Microsoft shell / codename MONAD) as well.

And we haven't enjoyed the UNIX pipe? The pipe command was vaguely available in DoS.

.NET handles whether the user types “-?” or “/?”, so you don't have to care anymore!
Did I care in the first place?

One last thing: anything can be mapped to a drive, and drives don't just have to be letters.
You mean I can (GASP!) Have drives known as "1:"? Why not HDA1??? Oh - sorry - that's a partition.

I've had enough. Goodnight.

James

[CaptainPinko]

i'm sorry but that reply was so sub-par i can't even qualify for as flame. i believe i made it clear i was talking about one feature, and not even saying that the product as a whole was than any *nix offering but only that it was an interesting feature and that it seemed like it had potential. for the sake of the forum and your sphincter a favour and remove whatever you rammed up your anus.

thnx.

[GaryJones32]

bill gates makes so much money per hour if you put him in a room full
of 500 dollar bills it litterally wouldn't be worth his time to
pick them up and put them in his pocket............

nuff said

[CaptainPinko]

<blinks> i suspect that if bill gates discovered world peace half the people on this forum would start a war just because they wouldn't be able to appreciate anything that came out of redmond. anything that pushes computer science forward should be welcomed... but looks like this post was become a form of retard paper


ps- for RAD and QND apps nothing beats VB6 (assuming you are willing to run it on windows/wine and it needs to be gui)

[Wolface]

Im actually interest in seeing that MSH. It's the new adventure for microsoft since they have never implemented anything like that (DOS is not even worth being called command line) and my question is, why put a shell on win?

All the fire that microsoft has put up with user friendly stuff and they being so decided to use only gui; is really strange to find this "reinvention". maybe after seing the linux shell and the mac os x shell, it came to their senses that having a shell is something useful. Almost too late to realize that :P

[Trogdor]

I'd normally flame this, but, Captain Pinko, your first post did all the work for me! :p

[Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379]

C'mon... he is seriously pointing out one neat thing that he'd like to see. It just happens it has to do with a product produced by Microsoft. Enough with the flames, or I'll have to close tthis down.

I personally think anything that could enhance interoperability between any OSes is a good idea. I like what Cygwin's got going, with a Linux-like environment on a Windows system. Now, if that were ported with Java, I'd really perk my ears up...

[Satanic Atheist]

Hmmm, "How to start a flame war".

First of, I wasn't trying to start a flame war, but some of the points that came out are hardly ground-breaking technology and most of already exists in the Linux world. Who cares who made it? I switched to Linux because I became sick and tired of the MS crap falling down repetitively. I don't want to reinstall an OS once a month and I don't want to have my hands and feet tied by a company that has so far failed to supply satisfactory goods (see anti-trust case, for one).

Quite simply, I see absolutely nothing new here that warrants a constructive comment.

James

[Odins_Son]

Satanic-I don' t think his link was to show something new and ground breaking nor was it a post saying microsoft is a better os. So, you don't have to get into the benefits of linux over microsoft, we are all well aware!


Quite simply, I see absolutely nothing new here that warrants a constructive comment.
Then spare us your arrogance and don't post.

[Satanic Atheist]

I'm not looking for a flame war and I don't think I warrant negative comments against me.

My original post was against the article that CaptainPinko offerred, not against him personally or his post.

The article was naive and a waste of space. MONAD is offering what is part of the core essence of both UNIX and Linux based systems. As such, it offers very little ground-breaking technology and is offering a move for Windows from the User-based systems to the Admin-based systems.

Odin_Son:

I am not flaming the post. I am not flaming anyone. I just fail to see why that Microsoft can come up with something "revolutionary" that we (Linux) users have had the benefit of for so long. Why is it that the big cheese get the credit for writing a scripting system that has existed before?

I will also ignore your comment on my arrogance. If you have a problem with me, PM me. Don't drag it to the forums. You don't have to read what I type.

James

[Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379]

Originally posted by Satanic Atheist
I'm not looking for a flame war and I don't think I warrant negative comments against me.

My original post was against the article that CaptainPinko offerred, not against him personally or his post.


No, negative comments are not warranted about anyone here.


The article was naive and a waste of space. MONAD is offering what is part of the core essence of both UNIX and Linux based systems. As such, it offers very little ground-breaking technology and is offering a move for Windows from the User-based systems to the Admin-based systems.

Odin_Son:

I am not flaming the post. I am not flaming anyone. I just fail to see why that Microsoft can come up with something "revolutionary" that we (Linux) users have had the benefit of for so long. Why is it that the big cheese get the credit for writing a scripting system that has existed before?

I will also ignore your comment on my arrogance. If you have a problem with me, PM me. Don't drag it to the forums. You don't have to read what I type.

James

While I agree completely with you, your comments regarding these "features", if you can call them that, aren't really on topic. CaptainPinko was specifically mentioning how he liked that a shell that fits with a high-level language. That's what I percieve this thread to be about, at least. If you would like to gripe about the other aspects of MSH, either start a new thread or go into our Hating Microsoft in a Nutshell (http://www.justlinux.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107431) thread, or start a new thread. Now, if you'd like to gripe about a shell tied into a high-level language, then be my guest to continue here.

But, if there are any more flames, or if things start to spark, I'm afraid I or one of the other mods will be forced to close this thread.

[Wolface]

hey people why fighting about nothing.
A: i like this
B: i dont like this
A: why the f## u dont like this?
B: what the f%% r u talkin about?

relax, if just for 1 day everyone accepts that no one has to agree with ur idea there will be a 60% reduction of posts in justlinux

*just wanted to make everyone happy :rolleyes:

[Satanic Atheist]

My comments are on topic since I am referring to MONAD and how it's only something "new" the Microsoft world.

Now, would anyone like to offer a comparison to the BASH that we use and carry on this thread?

James

[CaptainPinko]

Originally posted by Satanic Atheist
My comments are on topic since I am referring to MONAD and how it's only something "new" the Microsoft world.

Now, would anyone like to offer a comparison to the BASH that we use and carry on this thread?

James

MONAD is only new to microsoft? there is a shell in linux that will return an actuall object that i can mainpulate in a high-level language like java? well i must have missed that one, please tell me where i can find it because that sounds really interesting and it would make developing scripts alot niceer and easier for me. don't leave me waiting.

[Satanic Atheist]

I would use BASH and I don't consider it to be particularly low-level. For example, the If...Then...Else... loops are of a similar construct that of the ultimate high-level language - BASIC (anyone remember what that stands for?).

What are you trying to do? There are a couple of BASH Programming HowTos available on TLDP (http://tldp.org) which I've gone through and are very concise.

Remember that the INIT scripts and rc.* scripts (BSD) are all written in BASH. When your machine is brought up, the scripts are in BASH form and when it shuts down, the scripts are in BASH.

James

[mrBen]

Don't forget that you could be using the interactive python shell as your main shell ;) which links into a nice high-level language :D

[CaptainPinko]

Originally posted by Satanic Atheist
BASIC (anyone remember what that stands for?).
Beginner All-purpose Symbolic Intruction Code... i'm sorry but i don't see how anyone could take it for the ultimate HLL... not even in a joke.

What are you trying to do?
i would like something like this in a shell


dir current
current.list ()
while (current.hasNext ()){
current.nextFile ()
if (current.file().isDir())
{current.file().setX('ugo');}
}


this way instead of trimminbg the top off of a ls command using tail you could do something like ls.body() or ls.header() if you wanted the fluff.

also instead of command line options i had rather set the properties in a more method-y way:
rpm .install (myRPM) .setVerbose() 1.to(RPMLog) 2.to(RPMErr.log)this shouldn't take too much extra time to help w/ tab completion and increases readability and should remove some obscure idioms

i don't consider (as a CS major) if-then-else all that high-level... but merely the requirements for a programming languages as opposed to an assembler. HLL to me should have some incorporation of functional/intentional/OOP/Aspect-oriented program

Originally posted by mrBen
Don't forget that you could be using the interactive python shell as your main shell ;) which links into a nice high-level language :D

my favourtie part of python is the interactive sesion which allows me to interctively debug my programs w/o recompiling just... but the file i/o is not all that great so i wouldn't use an interactive session as a shell prompt... but it has the potential for beign developed into one


now, if this is in bash then i'm sorry that i've missed something. now i don't expect msh to fulfill all this but it is something that i find interesting and am excited about these possibilites. i'm not saying that this is for everyone and etc, but i thought that it may be of interest to people interested in new directions. on a similar note i believe there is a lisp-shell that i'm planning on tracking down some time...

[Satanic Atheist]

Thanks, I'd forgotten what it stood for.

Originally posted by CaptainPinko
i'm sorry but i don't see how anyone could take it for the ultimate HLL... not even in a joke.

I wasn't joking. I just fail to see any language that can be classed any higher that BASIC.

For low-level languages, even the very lowest - assembler, the If...Then...Else... loop structure simply doesn't exist. At least, I never found it when I was doing assembler several years back. I don't think you can get any lower that that.

James

[CaptainPinko]

i believe --correct me if i'm wrong-- that assembler is not considered a language.

if-then-else is one of the first developments made in computer languages and i'd bet it pre-dates structured programming even

[Satanic Atheist]

Good point - I'm not really sure how you'd classify it. On one hand, you could consider it a language since it's used for programming in. On the other hand, it's literally the first stage up from machine code (which you can't program in). I suppose it's all dependant on what you consider a langauge.

I guess if you take the following Assembly Language (aka assembler) in a construct like this (note - simplified to invite other posters):

MOV AX,CX

(Which means copy the accumulator register to the count register). The MOV command will translate directly into a hex (and consequently binary) code such as 8d (or whatever it is). It's quite easy to reverse the code out using a debugger into assembler, but making sense of it isn't. I don't think you can reverse engineer C or C++ in the same way, can you?

Hmmm, maybe it's more of an interpretorial language than actually a language... It's extremely hard to program in and something that would take a page of C++ code may take 20+ pages in assembler (there are no constructs such as the If...Then...Else... one).

Lastly, the only real advantages of knowing assembler is to reverse engineer code, writing small and extremely fast programs and having direct access to the hardware at the lowest level. I certainly wouldn't recommend it for programming a huge program in.

CaptainPinko - your call.

James

[mrBen]

IIRC, assembly isn't regarded as a language because all it is is a alphanumeric representation of the actual machine code, whereas a 'proper' language isn't.

You can 'assemble' assembly language yourself - I used to do this with Z80 and 6502 (Amstrad/Spectrum and BBC) - you write your assembly code out, and then you just get your machine code guide, and convert the instructions to the hex code. Can't do that with C ;)

[nouse66]

Originally posted by mrBen

You can 'assemble' assembly language yourself - I used to do this with Z80 and 6502 (Amstrad/Spectrum and BBC) - you write your assembly code out, and then you just get your machine code guide, and convert the instructions to the hex code. Can't do that with C ;)

ohhhhhh man is that a pain! i remember having to do that in school :(

[CaptainPinko]

Originally posted by Satanic Atheist
MOV AX,CX

(Which means copy the accumulator register to the count register)

<shudder> x86 is to assembler what DOS/Win 3.11 are to operating systems

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by Satanic Atheist
(there are no constructs such as the If...Then...Else... one). Nope. Sorry. Assembler has an if / then / else construct. If it didn't, then how in the heck would gcc be able to compile programs that did?

Assembly is Turing-complete (you can do anything in it that you can do on a Turing machine). If / then / else is one of the requirements (IIRC) of being Turing-complete. If you can't make decisions directly, then there's no way to simulate them with some other construct.

As for how you would do it, here's a pseudo-MIPS version of if(a) a=0; else a=1;. Assume that a is stored in %s0. %zero is a register whose contents are hardcoded to zero.

beq else, %s0, %zero
add %s0, %zero, %zero
jmp end
else: addi %s0, %zero, 1
end: # next assembly statement goes here In all these instructions except for the jmp, the target is listed first, and the two operands are listed second and third. So the first instruction branches to the label "else" if %s0 and %zero are equal. The second instruction adds %zero to %zero, and stores the result (which will be 0) into %s0 (which was a). The third skips the else part of the C code. The fourth adds an immediate value (1) to %zero, and stores the result into %s0 (addi is "add immediate"). "else:" and "end:" are line labels; they get translated to addresses by the assembler.

If this is not an if / then / else, then I'd like to know what it's missing...

[CaptainPinko]

well that is how conditionals are represented in assembler, i would not call this a true if then else since the condition HAS to be calculated before hand, and there is not enforced block-structure, you are just using conditional gotos which allows you write spaghetti-code. to me this is analogous to say that a language that didn't have an explicit "for" structure had a "for" structure because it had a "while" loop which can be written to have the same use

part of the features of HLL is not only what they allow but what they prevent... English by having a stricter syntax in terms of word order allows you not to have to have agreements on every word



ps- was that MIPS assembler in your example?

[bandwidth_pig]

Originally posted by CaptainPinko
i believe --correct me if i'm wrong-- that assembler is not considered a language.

if-then-else is one of the first developments made in computer languages and i'd bet it pre-dates structured programming even

Actually, it is considered a language. Of course, I am just basing this on what I have read. What would be interesting is if you couldn't call it a langauge, what would you call it? I guess even HTML is considered a language. Of course, now I am splitting hairs.

[CaptainPinko]

Originally posted by bandwidth_pig
What would be interesting is if you couldn't call it a langauge, what would you call it?

assembler? ithink:
java, fortran, eiffel, python = language;
x86, MIPS, SPARC, PPC= assembler;

[Satanic Atheist]

Originally posted by CaptainPinko
x86 is to assembler what DOS/Win 3.11 are to operating systems

Now who's looking for a Flame War? :D

Originally posted by bwkaz
If / then / else is one of the requirements (IIRC) of being Turing-complete.

If so, then I guess that it can be considered to be a language. As I said, it's been years since I messed about with this stuff, so I can't remember it too well. I can't remember and If...Then...Else... construct.

James

[mrBen]

The construct in assembler is not really an if..then..else. If..then..else is a higher-level construct, which can be mimicked in assembly, using compares and jumps.

It's a fine line, because they both perform the same function. But strictly speaking, assembly doesn't have it.

[Satanic Atheist]

Yeah, that's what I thought. I knew that you could do a similar thing to the higher-level construct but you had to code it in manually. Sorry, I should've made myself clearer. At least I'm not going too mad.

Hmmm, this is getting me interested in Assembly Language again, now. I kinda like the idea of short, fast code and it's a really useful thing to know, especially if you're reverse-engineering programs and drivers and stuff.

James

[CaptainPinko]

or filling in SPARC delay slot to maximaize pipelining performance

[Satanic Atheist]

I feel like I've been bludgeoned to death with a cold, bloody trout.

James.

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by CaptainPinko
ps- was that MIPS assembler in your example?

Originally posted by bwkaz
here's a pseudo-MIPS version of if(a) a=0; else a=1;. Pseudo.

[l01yuk]

To get back to the main topic (if I can get away with it).

IMHO an OO shell could be a good idea as long as basic file access can be done using simple commands as in bash, and then advanced operations such as database access, networking, gui, awk and sed-like operations, that sort of thing, can be done using objects .

It also needs to be extensible like python so that people can write functions in VB, C++, C# and so on. I do think though that they should steer well clear of using it for served web scripting though because it just creates too much risk.

If they do that it will be good, it won't do anything you can't do on Linux in one way or other but it will be a single tool where Linux needs several. So it's the same story, windows users get integration and linux users get a practical choice. Take your pick - but don't pick on it yet. It isn't even out.



And assembler is a language since it is used to describe machine operations; and you can't do that without a language.