Posted Dec 10, 2011 6:45 UTC (Sat) by khim
In reply to: Evolution of shells in Linux (developerWorks)
Parent article: Evolution of shells in Linux (developerWorks)
You can argue that PowerShell does not yet cover all possible functionality, but it's not a deficiency of the idea itself. Just a sign or relative youth.
Nope. It's an Achilles' heel. PowerShell is half-decade old already, so you can not say it's all that young. It's just not a shell replacement, it belongs to a long list of "universal glue languages" (which were rarely all that universal). Besides LISP on the LISP Machines or Oberon on Oberon OS (which is the only examples where "universal languages" were almost fully universal indeed) this list includes things like REXX, AppleScript, VBScript, etc. They are good in their "area of expertise", but please don't try to mix them with shells - because they are not shells despite the hype.
Why? Because they assume programs will offer specialized interfaces just for that one flavor or scripting. But developers of a lot of programs just don't care enough to do that! They may provide some kind of command line switches and/or offer some textual output (because it's easy), but why should they bother to offer all these other things? This is not what they are paid for!
Some programs don't include any scripting support at all (in this case even bash can do nothing), but more often then not they do include some scripting - because their authors need it for development purposes. But it's as minimal as possible, because it's side-show at best. And most such schemes and languages are horrible when they need to interact with programs which don't include nice-structured-interface-of-the-year. PowerShell is not an exception.
to post comments)