Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?

From: Percival (dragontamer5788_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/29/04 

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 10:49:00 -0500

Phil Carmody wrote:
> Herbert Kleebauer <klee@unibwm.de> writes:
>>Now show us a much easier solution using bash/Linux.
>
>
> What the _fuck_ has linux got to do with a comparison between shells?
> You see, Herbert, it's _you_ who can't keep on-topic. Stick sh or bash
> on your Win/DOS box, and the following should work perfectly, or perfectly
> wrongly, depending on whether 0 or 1 is yes.

I hate to intrude, but when Herbert and I began this argument however
long ago, it was about Linux shells vs Dos/Window shells. Period.
Eventually, it filtered down into a Bash vs Windows argument through i
don't know how. It isn't about bash, it is Linux/Unix shell vs
Dos/Window shell. By Unix shell, i mean tch csh and all those other
stuff, but i stuck with Bash because it was most common.

Again, here is the root of the thread:

Herbert said a long time ago:
=======================
"T.M. Sommers" wrote:

>> One of the biggest advantages of Unix-like shells
>> is that they allow the user to do things that the creator of the
>> shell never imagined.

But they can't be more flexible than DOS/Windows batch scripts,
where you can directly insert processor instructions into the
script. Anything a computer can do, a DOS/Win batch script also
can do.
=================

I dunno how it started though. Dos batch scripts are powerful, more
powerful than GUIs :) But not practically as powerful as Unix scripts,
cause on Unix you can depend on grep, sed, etc etc on being there.

I mean, brain*** is powerful, it can do anything any other programming
language could, doesn't mean i use it.

Percival

Quantcast