Windows Powershell

anyone try it yet?  whatcha think of it?

INNOVATION!

Oh lawd iz dat sum mo nards?

Just had a look at it... Am I supposed to be impressed? This is yet another shell. The syntax is better than Bash, but it's too verbose. It manages to make the simplest things complex. It's OO because OO = good, or so it's said in enterprises. It's not portable. It doesn't work on Windows 2000 because Microsoft wants me to upgrade. I'd rather use an existing, portable scripting language I already know, like PHP-CLI, Perl or Python.

You can read Powershell's documentation by typing this: man bash

>>5
Not rly; I'd be glad if it were more like Bash so I could make protable scripts and use it like Bash.

Bash + PATHEXT + CMD-like completion (show fucking complete files, cycle them on Tab) would be good for a shell. Not the best scripting language (in fact, the worst), but a good shell.

bash has show files on tab complete

>>7
Yeah, I mean when you press Tab once, the first matching file gets shown completely; when you press it for another time it moves onto the next file or does nothing if it's the only one.

>>8

why don't you shut up and use bash properly you goddamn tard

>>8
and what happens when you have 500 different files with almost the same name?

>>9
>>10

Actually I'd be suprised if you couldnt tell bash to operate like this. zsh certainly can. It's still retarded, but yunno.

>>8
isn't that what windows cmd.exe does?
that gets really annoying really fast.

>>9
Because I don't like it that way you goddamn tard

>>10
You realize there are too many files, delete characters, write some more characters, and press Tab again.

>>11
I've read Bash's man and you can't :(

>>12
Exactly, it's the way CMD does it, that's what I said in >>6.

>>13
Tard, What I'm saying is bash does what you just asked. You're just a fucking tard.

OP: Well, Powershell makes the big deal about having a built-in parser, in contrast to *sh and everything else where the commands themselves are responsible for parsing their arguments.  Then there's the big thing about being able to pass objects instead of text.  Then there's the ability to extend the shell in an object oriented matter (with Powershell's fucking-god-damn-long-names-for-EVERYTHING)

I don't think the object passing is a big deal.  There is no reason why alternate versions of standard shell utilites can't be rewritten to pass XML if it was really needed.  Shell utilites and the shell in itself is supposed to be small and fast, amirite?

The built-in parsing ability, it's nice, but isn't it better to have that function relegated to common libraries?  Which made me think of something else: do you think XML is ever going to become so fundamental that it becomes part of the Linux kernel?

And I don't care about the way Powershell has the object-oriented polymorphism or whatever.  If you want to program, get a compiler.  (It's funny how it says in the PS documentation how "sometimes a compiler isn't available".  That's something that NEVER happens in Linux)

>>14
Tard, I've read the manual but it doesn't seem to behave as I want. If it can and I failed, post your .bashrc to do so.

>>16
mmm no. You're a tard and do not deserve it. You obviously hate free software and do not deserve to use it.

>>15
Because XML sucks. It's businessware. It's a bloated, verbose, and at the same time limited syntax which takes too long and too much to parse.

do you think XML is ever going to become so fundamental that it becomes part of the Linux kernel?
No, because Linux is not for sale. If it were, we'd have to advertise it as being object-oriented, XML-aware, scalable, and enterprise-grade.

An OO shell for example. More businessware.

And regarding compiler availability for Windows: if you want and know to write a script, I'm sure you have all the tools you need. PowerShell is not always available either.

>>17
What? I love free software. I just like CMD-like completion. Does this make me "hate free software" in your eyes? If so then you're another long-haired, LSD-taking GNU hippy.

Just admit it can't be done in Bash, or show me how and own me because I already told you I read Bash's man page and it doesn't seem to be possible.

>>17 is a GNU hippy
bind '"\t":menu-complete'

>>19
tcsh can do cmd-like completion...
bindkey "\t" complete-word-fwd

zsh does that by default after showing all matching files joey bishop

bsh and bash do it, too.
In fact, they were able to do this a loooooooooooong time ago.

Was it 5 or 10 years?

>>23
How?

Put the following lines in your .inputrc:
set show-all-if-ambiguous on
"\t": menu-complete
5 minutes in Google.

>>25
You rule, and I have been pwnd. I fail at reading man pages because it was there. Thank you sir.

>>26
Told you that you were a tard.

>>27
Looks like I am, I even found the way to make it forwards and backwards with Tab/Shift+Tab (although I Googled for "menu-complete" which I overlooked when I read man bash, probably thinking it had to deal with the list of files shown when pressing Tab many times). The Shift+Tab one is very tricky.

<code>mitä</code> <b>mitä</b> <i>mitä</i> <u><o>vittuu?</u></o>

mitäs [b]vittuu[/b]

not much of an EXPERT BBCODE PROGRAMMER

Hi, I can spam /prog/ too, you faggot.

Also, smoke weed everyday.

<-- check em dubz

Bringing /prog/ back to its people
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy