Re: Questions

[Matthew Butterick <matthewb mutagenetics com>]

Ease of use is relative to the user's expectations of how the tool
works. A bash that didn't use standard bash commands wouldn't really be
bash anymore, and if you were fluent with bash commands, you'd find it
both harder to use and less elegant. 

MB


delmar watkins wrote:
> 
> I am not suggesting getting rid of Bash, only making a new shell that can be
> heralded as "easy to use" and "elegant."
> 
> Umm... think of it like busybox;  there are  a lot of commands crammed in to
> one executable.  we don't need to get rid of the old structure, we just need
> a new interface to our computers.  Bash should remain Bash,
> 
> Sander Vesik wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 22 May 2001, delmar watkins wrote:
> >
> > > See how easy it would be to have a new, fresh, GOOD syntax for a CLI but
> > > keep the power user in the loop???
> > >
> >
> > You can't get the power user in the loop - you just suggested breaking all
> > his/her scripts horribly. In fact you might easily find it hard to
> > actually find people who would write such shells...