New guy question

[D-Man]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 12:23:46AM +0200, Alex Martelli wrote:
| "D-Man" <dsh8290 at rit.edu> wrote in message
| news:mailman.992364979.25779.python-list at python.org...
|     ...
| > Some dinosaurs aren't all that old ;-).  I don't think the shell on
| > NT/2000 is any better, except maybe the screen drawing is less buggy
| > (helps for bash, vim, less, man, mutt, etc.).
| 
| Oh come on, we just went over this -- would you rather have:

Hmm, sorry, that must have been in a thread I wasn't following.

|     C:\> peep 2>err.txt
| run peep with stderr redirection, a la NT, or run peep with

I didn't know that any Windows considered the existence of such
high-level shell operations ...

| stdout redirected and an argument of 2, a la 95/98, for
| example...?!  And how can a shell where you can run
| foo.py directly "not be any better" than one where you
| just *can't* extend the range of executable extensions?
| Again, NT is the former, 95/98 the latter.  Specifically,

I had recently learned that "windows" (I double checked, but I only
have win2k at work) could run scripts (.py files) automatically if the
associations in explorer were correct.

| cmd.exe in one case, command.com in the other.  And
| don't let me get started about how the *consoles* (not
| strictly a shell problem, but that's where you run shells)
| behave for copy and paste in the two systems, etc, etc... !!!

Have you ever read the vim FAQ?  There is a quote in it re win9x
console supposedly from a M$ employee.  Rather amusing.

| bash may well be better than either, but that's no excuse
| for ignoring the large differences between them.  And

Well, since I don't use either (command.com or cmd.exe) I was unaware
of the rare high-level constructs they have and the differences
thereof.  I use the '#!' convenience to extend the range of executable
extensions.

-D