Olin Lathrop wrote:

> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> Of course. But I repeatedly explained that all the recent doubts here
>> about cmd.exe could be resolved by using the exact terms of the doubt;
>> no further knowledge was necessary. In all the examples I cited, the
>> result was one of the top links in Google using very naive terms, like
>> "cmd.exe delayed environment variable extension" or "cmd.exe output to
>> environment variable".
> 
> Yes, but again, you need to know to ask.

I seem to... 

> Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is.

My point is that there seems to be a problem with knowledge about
cmd.exe and the alternatives for it that has nothing to do with the
capabilities, and not much with the documentation. I'm not sure exactly
what the problem is, though. 

> I think you're saying we're all stupid for not having noticed, found,
> or decided to chase down certain features in CMD.  

You don't have to think much; I've written enough on this issue that
just reading what I wrote will get you an idea of what I'm saying. (You
have to find it, though; I won't write it in book form :)

I definitely did not say that "you" are all stupid, much to the contrary
what concerns you, and pretty much nothing about anybody else.

I can repeat and rephrase it here, briefly, so that you don't have to
look it up: I wonder why sometimes even seasoned professionals still
complain about cmd.exe. I know its limitations, but I've never felt the
need or urge to complain about them.

I wrote and write a lot of MS-DOS and Windows shell scripts and I got
tired of command.com early on, so I got myself 4DOS. My time wasn't
worth what it is now back then, but so much it was worth. From there on,
I never had to complain about the lack of features in command.com. When
I moved to Win2k (never used WinNT), I got myself 4NT right from the
start, which was obvious, having been a 4DOS user. No need to complain
about cmd.exe either. Later I started to write shell scripts for
environments where the other programmers didn't necessarily have 4NT, so
I started to write shell scripts for cmd.exe. Of course I missed much of
what 4NT offers; that's why I started to use it in the first place. But
still no need to complain; I knew it was a choice (their choice). If
something was too complex to do in cmd.exe, I did it in JavaScript.
Support for it is built into all newer Windows versions; at least since
XP IIRC. I don't think there's anything you could do in cmd.exe or Bash
that you can't do in JavaScript. Still no need to complain. In between I
experimented with a few different shells like Bash, Ch, IPython, but
couldn't yet move myself away from 4NT/TCC on Windows. In the meantime
I'm doing a decent amount of work under Linux, so I had to acquire some
fluency in Bash, and since it is available under Windows, too, and
something of a de-facto standard under Linux, I might just standardize
on it for all my systems. But still no need to complain about cmd.exe.

So I wonder why even smart people complain about cmd.exe, and often
about the wrong things. It does some things. It doesn't do other things.
It does more than most users are aware of. But for what it doesn't do
are other options available. If you want to do something that's
difficult in cmd.exe, don't use it -- and you don't have to complain
about it. There's not much use in complaining that a hammer doesn't help
much when you want to tighten a screw. Use a screwdriver. It comes with
the same toolbox. Even if in another toolbox there's a hammer that has a
screwdriver blade on the other end of the grip.

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist