Warp wrote:
> 
> Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> : First: shell scripting IS a programming language.
> 
>   Well, strictly speaking, yes.
>   The most important difference with common programming languages is that
> the shell script is very closely related to the Unix system and its tools.
> Using unix tools (usually separate little programs, sometimes shell builtin
> commands) is very natural and straightforward using a shell script.
>   In most programming languages this isn't as easy. Usually programming
> languages are quite independent from the system and so, calling system tools
> is not as easy.
> 
> : Second: Unix doesn't have built-in compilers either.  What you should
> : have said is that most Unix packages, usually come with a bundled C
> : compiler.  But not all of them do.  SCO, for example, doesn't unless you
> : buy the "advanced" package.
> 
>   Well, it's more an exception than a rule that in a randomly chosen Unix
> there's no cc command... :)

Maybe my original complaint wasn't clear enough.  While most Unices do
provide a bundled C compiler, it is not part of the operating system. 
It is merely an application bundled with the package that includes the
operating system and many tools and applet.  Would you argue that
Solitaire or the calculator are part of the Windows operating system?

-- 
Francois Labreque | Rimmer: "Let's go to red alert!"
    flabreque     | Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir?  You realize it
        @         |          actually means changing the bulb!"
   videotron.ca

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:05:44 -0500, "Bill DeWitt"
<bde### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:

>    That is the question isn't it? Those objecting seem to assume that we
>mean standard of excellence, then call us stupid because of that. It is just
>a standard, like 1/4x20 threads on a bolt. You rarely see 33/64x19 threads
>on a bolt. Why? Because you have to have standards. 

Inch threads?


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:

> Inch threads?

Don't even start with that, Peter !

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
: Would you argue that
: Solitaire or the calculator are part of the Windows operating system?

  You didn't understand what I meant.
  I consider tools and applications part of the OS if they come with the
OS distribution when you buy it. That is, you don't have to buy/download
separate 3rd party programs but you can use the ones that came with the
system itself.
  The tools may not be strictly part of the core operating system, but they
are part of the package. In Windows you get almost no tools for efficient
usage of your computer when you buy Windows in the store, while in almost any
Unix package you get lots of useful little tools (which are often quite
closely related to the OS itself). That was what I meant.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

>     Well, considering the comments in some of my programming classes many
> people want to learn C++ so that "I can write programs for Windows"

It's a shame that people associate languages with OSes.  C++ is available on
almost all OSes.

> looking
> at the programming shelves of book stores, while there are more books for
> using linux than there used to be, most of the programming books are
> programming for Windows.

That's because people programming in Windows need more help.  :)
Just kidding... It's because of all the extra APIs that Windows introduces
that are non-standard or proprietary including multimedia APIs, registry,
etc....  This is good and bad at the same time.  Good because developers
don't have to re-invent the wheel everytime they start a new program.  Bad
because it's proprietary and changes from release to release.
If you want to learn C++ on another platform (say Mac, Unix, or whatever),
you would look for a book on C++, not C++ for XXX.

> Most of the programs I have are for Windows only,

Probably true.  Even Java programs written on Windows are for Windows only.
;)

"Windows... Brought to you by the makers of EDLIN".

Post a reply to this message

Richard Dault wrote:
> 
> >     Well, considering the comments in some of my programming classes many
> > people want to learn C++ so that "I can write programs for Windows"
> 
> It's a shame that people associate languages with OSes.  C++ is available on
> almost all OSes.

And you can use other languages to develop Windows apps as well.

> 
> > looking
> > at the programming shelves of book stores, while there are more books for
> > using linux than there used to be, most of the programming books are
> > programming for Windows.
> 
> That's because people programming in Windows need more help.  :)
> Just kidding... It's because of all the extra APIs that Windows introduces
> that are non-standard or proprietary including multimedia APIs, registry,

hmmm... curses, ncurses, tkl, gkl, qt, Athena Widgets, Motif widgets...
you can't say that Microsoft is the only company (or organism) that
write their own classes..

> etc....  This is good and bad at the same time.  Good because developers
> don't have to re-invent the wheel everytime they start a new program.  Bad
> because it's proprietary and changes from release to release.
> If you want to learn C++ on another platform (say Mac, Unix, or whatever),
> you would look for a book on C++, not C++ for XXX.

If I wanted to learn C++, I'd buy a C++ book.  If I want to learn about
the Microsoft Foundation Classes, I'd buy a book about those.  The same
goes for X.

> 
> > Most of the programs I have are for Windows only,
> 
> Probably true.  Even Java programs written on Windows are for Windows only.
> ;)
> 
> "Windows... Brought to you by the makers of EDLIN".

And your point is?  

-- 
Francois Labreque | Rimmer: "Let's go to red alert!"
    flabreque     | Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir?  You realize it
        @         |          actually means changing the bulb!"
   videotron.ca

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

> Rick [Kitty5] <ric### [at] kitty5com> wrote:
> : what would you suggest?, we all go linux and back to the days of a GUI
> : sitting on top of a command line OS?

>   You clearly have no idea what Unix is.

>   Unix is not a command line OS. Unix is not a graphical OS.
>   The Unix operating system is a core which handles several things an operating
> system has to handle (like processes, resources, memory and so on). You can
> use the Unix operating systems through several user interfaces. One of these
> interfaces is the command line shell. Another one can be a graphical windowing
> system. 

	And linux also, correct. 

>   There are even Unix machines out there which do not have ANY user interface,
> not even a command line shell.

>   The X windowing system does not rely on the command line shell. It's far
> independent of any shell. It uses the operating system directly.
>   You can start X from a command line shell. You can start a command line
> shell from X. You don't need one to use the other, though.
> 
>   I think that you just have the so-called command-line-fobia-syndrome. 

	Lets us expand upon X windows. That is a hook into the kernal, a way to
make the kernal work using a graphic interface. 

	When talking command line, BASH, ASH, KSH and whatever are also hooks
into the kernal. The SH in all of those is SHell. Bourne Again SHell,
Korn SHell. 

	(And X applications are most always, without exception I have found,
graphic shells over SHells but that is another subject.) 

-- 
The great lie is not that only antisemites question 
the jewish holocaust, the great lie is that it can 
not be questioned. 
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 246

Post a reply to this message

> > That's because people programming in Windows need more help.  :)
> > Just kidding... It's because of all the extra APIs that Windows
introduces
> > that are non-standard or proprietary including multimedia APIs,
registry,
>
> hmmm... curses, ncurses, tkl, gkl, qt, Athena Widgets, Motif widgets...
> you can't say that Microsoft is the only company (or organism) that
> write their own classes..

True, but all the packages you mentioned are typically not written by the
company who wrote the OS.  Not to mention that they are typically available
from multiple vendors (and usually even have a GNU version).
BTW, I wasn't bashing Microsoft here, I was just pointing out that there is
much more available with the OS which some authors try to combine into one
book.  But instead, people should learn C++ first, then learn about specific
APIs such as MFC.

> > etc....  This is good and bad at the same time.  Good because developers
> > don't have to re-invent the wheel everytime they start a new program.
Bad
> > because it's proprietary and changes from release to release.
> > If you want to learn C++ on another platform (say Mac, Unix, or
whatever),
> > you would look for a book on C++, not C++ for XXX.
>
> If I wanted to learn C++, I'd buy a C++ book.  If I want to learn about
> the Microsoft Foundation Classes, I'd buy a book about those.  The same
> goes for X.

Yup, exaclty my point.

> > "Windows... Brought to you by the makers of EDLIN".
>
> And your point is?

No point.  I read that somewhere a long time ago and found it funny.  Edlin
is one of the funniest editors written and is still distributed with all
versions of Windows.  I wonder why?  I really don't think anyone uses it
anymore (or ever has!).

Post a reply to this message

"Richard Dault" <rda### [at] yahoocom> wrote :
>
> No point.  I read that somewhere a long time ago and found it funny.
Edlin
> is one of the funniest editors written and is still distributed with all
> versions of Windows.  I wonder why?  I really don't think anyone uses it
> anymore (or ever has!).

    I used it extensively. Before windows and for some time after the first
releases. When a person's computer was killed by things like deleting
command.com or autoexec.bat, I would go in with a small dos disk with edlin
and a few other tools and set it back up.

Post a reply to this message

Richard Dault wrote:
> 
> > > "Windows... Brought to you by the makers of EDLIN".
> >
> > And your point is?
> 
> No point.  I read that somewhere a long time ago and found it funny.  Edlin
> is one of the funniest editors written and is still distributed with all
> versions of Windows.  I wonder why?  I really don't think anyone uses it
> anymore (or ever has!).

I used it a lot. It was horrible 8) (in the beginning) Anyway, that was in the
DOS-days when I had hardly heard about Unix. Interfaces have gone a long way
since then.

Remco

Post a reply to this message