Re: [COFF] Powershell better than Bourne shell?

[Grant Taylor via COFF <coff@minnie.tuhs.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1272 bytes --]

On 11/18/21 4:03 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> I recently had a discussion with some colleagues on the topic of 
> shells.  Two people whom I respect both told me that Microsoft's 
> Powershell runs rings round the Bourne shell.

I've heard praise of PowerShell from people who are skilled in the 
typical Unix shell.  But I've never heard anything on the order of 
running rings around Bourne shell.

> Somehow that sounds like anathema to me, but it's not beyond the bounds 
> of possibility.  Before I waste time investigating, can anybody here 
> give me some insights?

I would say that PowerShell was designed two or more decades /after/ 
Bourne shell and that a lot was learned in computer since in the 
intervening time.

I've been told that PowerShell and / or the commands run therefrom 
actually pass structural data that is easy to query /if/ you know how to 
do so.  It's this structure vs free form textual output that is common 
in Unix shells that make the biggest difference.  Think XML markup vs an 
unstructured text file.  (Though you don't actually see the structure 
scaffolding.)

At least that's my understanding from people competent in traditional 
Unix shells and PowerShell.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


[-- Attachment #1.2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4017 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff