home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.unix.wizards:4649 comp.unix.shell:4669 comp.unix.misc:4136
- Path: sparky!uunet!know!mips2!news.bbn.com!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!atlantis.psu.edu!barr
- From: barr@pop.psu.edu (David Barr)
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.shell,comp.unix.misc
- Subject: Re: The Problem with UNIX
- Message-ID: <-ml1H31!ua@atlantis.psu.edu>
- Date: 13 Nov 92 03:16:11 GMT
- References: <1992Nov11.194557.16258@yarc.uucp> <EEIDE.92Nov12120339@asylum.cs.utah.edu> <1992Nov12.193707.27532@chpc.utexas.edu>
- Sender: news@atlantis.psu.edu (Usenet)
- Organization: Penn State Population Research Institute
- Lines: 43
-
- In article <1992Nov12.193707.27532@chpc.utexas.edu> michael@chpc.utexas.edu (Michael Lemke) writes:
- >Well, fixing typos is neat but it is not the essential problem. My
- >main complaint about Unix on the user interface level is that there is
- >no command line interpreter. What I mean is that after the shell munged
- >your command line it is *completely* up to the program to interpret the
- >command line and there is no system function available to parse even
- >these `standard' options.
-
- You mean like getopt(3)?
-
- >Some programs use one letter chinese (you
- >know, one character per word) and others (eg, find) use words (-print
- >-name). And the real problem then starts when -l changes its meaning
- >from command to command, some commands need spaces between the option
- >and the argument, others don't, some take both, yech. This would all be
- >solved if there were *one* system function that is used by all programs
- >instead of having every program duplicate more or less the same
- >functionality with different success.
-
- You mean like getopt(3)? There is one function, it's just the people
- don't always choose to use it. I don't find this to be a Bad Thing.
- getopt(3) is too limiting in some cases, and it is overkill in others.
- Yes, this 'dd if=filename conv=ascii' is for the birds, and the author
- should have been shot for doing it this way, but that's not a reason
- to fault UNIX.
-
- >And it would be great if you
- >could abbreviate commands (command completion of some shells it neat
- >but why is it neccessary in the first place?) and options (no need for
- >dynamic chinese anymore).
- >
- >>I agree with Scott: There is no good reason that command shells shouldn't make
- >>more of an effort to understand the user.
- >
- >Computer: Calculate the weather forecast for Sunday, Nov 15!
-
- Why would i want to type all that out when i can just say:
-
- % weather nov 15
-
- --Dave
- --
- System Administrator, Population Research Institute barr@pop.psu.edu
-