181–187 of 187 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about how your argument made no sense, for any kind of language that exists.
Computer languages are not comparable to human languages; your argument is a misplaced simile
But I had to learn. No programming language is "intuitive", and certainly not power shell.
> If the software is written well, it will be sufficiently cross-platform and modular enough Yes … well … We brought on via acquisition a bunch of Windows devs. It turns out we can't even clone the repository onto their laptops: some files in the repo have ":" in the filename, which is forbidden. There's a "aux.rs", also a verboten filename in Windows. And then there were some that differed only in case, which honest…
> There's a "aux.rs", also a verboten filename in Windows. That's not true. > And then there were some that differed only in case, which honestly I don't know how we manage that, as the non-Windows side is macOS, and yet roughly once per year someone introduces two files, same name, differing case into the repo. Sounds like a crappily maintained repo.
Well, just for you, I've searched the Slack history. IIRC, this was inside a WSL session in Windows, but it definitely originated on a Windows machine:
$ git checkout rename-some-files
error: invalid path 'foo-crate-1/src/aux.rs'
error: invalid path 'foo-crate-2/src/aux.rs'
error: invalid path 'foo-crate-3/src/aux.rs'
No hate to OP, but almost every single argument in the article regarding Powershell boils down to them not knowing a thing about bash. I know this is the case, despite the claim in the article that they do, because it's clear from the text. I also felt bash was cryptic before I decided to actually learn it. Now it's one of my favourite languages. All it took was reading "man bash", which is actually super clear and s…
You're incorrect. I know bash and the syntax is not user friendly for me. You only had a response to the powershell part?
We're not disagreeing then. I specifically said I also felt bash felt cryptic back when I thought I "knew" it, but didn't really know it, as it turned out. Casual familiarity, or even frequent but superficial friction with bash definitely leaves one feeling they're dealing with incomprehensible symbols and hackiness most of the time.
But, the thing is, I'm not "guessing" you don't know it well enough. I'm inferring it clearly from how you described it in the text. Because it reminds me exactly of how I used to think about it too, before I invested the time and learned to love it. Perhaps you think you know it well enough, but the way you talk about it suggests you don't really. Unless of course you intentionally chose very contrived examples to push a point, but it didn't seem to me that that's what you were trying to do.
That's not to say that once you learn it properly you will certainly 100% percent love it and ditch PS of course. I'm just saying from the way you describe how you work with it, you don't sound like someone who's really really gotten comfortable with it and learned to rely on it. And if and when you did, I suspect you'd start liking it more. Happy to be proven wrong of course (not that that's important either way, we're just random guys expressing personal opinions over the internet :p ).
> You only had a response to the powershell part?
Yes. I don't really have a strong opinion (positive or negative) about the rest. Nicely written though, thanks for the read.
The bit that I did agree with quite a bit was the sad state of macs. But I don't think that necessarily makes the current Windows experience the pinnacle of development; it just makes macs worse. (how the Apple marketing machine manages to promote macs as "the best at X" when they're arguably pretty consistently the worst at X, for most Xs, is absolutely mindblowing to me).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hahahahaha. Now show me a linux distribution where what you are saying is true.
RHEL, "welcome to everything is old". Unfortunately it's also a headache to use Linuxbrew with RHEL because it keeps trying to install its bottled glibc which doesn't like the old (but heavily patched) kernel and breaks everything not statically linked to the system libc until you remove it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're incorrect. I know bash and the syntax is not user friendly for me. You only had a response to the powershell part?
> You're incorrect. I know bash and the syntax is not user friendly for me. We're not disagreeing then. I specifically said I also felt bash felt cryptic back when I thought I "knew" it, but didn't really know it, as it turned out. Casual familiarity, or even frequent but superficial friction with bash definitely leaves one feeling they're dealing with incomprehensible symbols and hackiness most of the time. But, the…
Wow, so you have this incredible ability to telepathically read other people's minds and you don't use it to solve murders? It's incredible that you, and you alone have the ability to know what's truly going on in someone's brain simply by reading a paragraph on the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're incorrect. I know bash and the syntax is not user friendly for me. We're not disagreeing then. I specifically said I also felt bash felt cryptic back when I thought I "knew" it, but didn't really know it, as it turned out. Casual familiarity, or even frequent but superficial friction with bash definitely leaves one feeling they're dealing with incomprehensible symbols and hackiness most of the time. But, the…
> But, the thing is, I'm not "guessing" you don't know it well enough. I'm inferring it clearly from how you described it in the text. Because it reminds me exactly of how I used to think about it too, before I invested the time and learned to love it. Perhaps you think you know it well enough, but the way you talk about it suggests you don't really. Unless of course you intentionally chose very contrived examples to…
My intent was to get you to consider that maybe there's more to bash than you may think (based on what you were saying about it), because I think it's a very rewarding journey. The intent wasn't to disparage your ability in bash.
But in any case, PS is good too. Use what you enjoy most, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But, the thing is, I'm not "guessing" you don't know it well enough. I'm inferring it clearly from how you described it in the text. Because it reminds me exactly of how I used to think about it too, before I invested the time and learned to love it. Perhaps you think you know it well enough, but the way you talk about it suggests you don't really. Unless of course you intentionally chose very contrived examples to…
I apologise I upset you. It was not my intention. My intent was to get you to consider that maybe there's more to bash than you may think (based on what you were saying about it), because I think it's a very rewarding journey. The intent wasn't to disparage your ability in bash. But in any case, PS is good too. Use what you enjoy most, I guess.