[ge-talk] Vision for a usable commandline

[Paul van Nugteren]

I have read some info and I've decided that I'll try it. The most
gnawing question of mine is, How should a shell (or (G)UI) behave when a
users wants to do something but doesn't know the proper command for it.

My regular mistakes were, type search instead of find, useing quotes
properly (took me several years to fully undersand RESULT=`ACTION``),
how to select files, in a *particular* order (regular expressions
nightmare), the difference between * in bash and it regex, passing
arguments etc. (find -exec grep wtf?) Smart pipes would be nice,
redirection madness grep "foobar" < file >outfile wtf? shouldn't it be
infile > grep "foobar" > outfile? etc etc.

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:33:17 -0800, "Tyler Akidau" <haiku at akidau.net>
said:
> One shell that might be worth investigating is fish. It's a relatively
> new
> shell that's similar to bash, zsh, etc in the overall facilities it tries
> to
> provide, but the developers approached the project with a very clear set
> of
> design goals that are actually quite similar to the design goals of BeOS
> and
> Haiku (clean & simple yet powerful designs, user-focused, etc). I tried
> it
> out at work about a year ago, and was quite taken with it, though it was
> still a little too rough around the edges for my purposes at the time. It
> seems to still be under active development, so it'd be interesting to see
> how much it's progressed.
> 
>   Design doc: http://fishshell.org/user_doc/design.html
>   Main site: http://fishshell.org
> 
> -Tyler
> 
> On 1/12/07, Michael Phipps <mphipps1 at rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > Be chose bash because (presumably)
> > a) free
> > b) done
> > c) probably best of breed for shell and simple scripting
> >
> > Personally, until I saw something better, I would be hard pressed to
> > disagree. One direction that Be was headed in and looks similar to Monad
> > was/is OpenBinder. Something to think about, although I am not completely
> > enamored with it.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > Ari Haviv wrote:
> > > It's based on applescript which you need if you want to make your own
> > > actions. It's an example of combining the visual approach of a GUI
> > > with the linguistic approach of a CLI. It's this combination that is
> > > most natural. left brain with right brain.
> > >
> > > Just like icons+text titles get you straight to the point (unlike
> > > MacOS X dock or terminal)
> > >
> > > The problem with the GUI only approach is that you eventually end up
> > > in a mess of menus, tabs and buttons to cover every possibility except
> > > the one that you are interested in. But the GUI advocates point to the
> > > archaic terminal or cmd.exe with its black screen and funky commands
> > > and syntax and score an easy win.
> > >
> > > On 1/12/07, Waldemar Kornewald <wkornewald at haiku-os.org> wrote:
> > >> On 1/12/07, Paul van Nugteren <pmvannugteren at eml.cc> wrote:
> > >>> Limited audience?? Do you know automater from Apple on MACOSX? I think
> > >>> computers should be made to do the work of people NOT being just a
> > >>> different interface a let the user repeatedly do the same action on
> > much
> > >>> data.
> > >> >From what I can see "Automator" is not a CLI application, so how does
> > >> this relate to my previous argument?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > glasselevator-talk mailing list
> > glasselevator-talk at bug-br.org.br
> > http://www.bug-br.org.br/mailman/listinfo/glasselevator-talk
> >



http://www.fastmail.fm