 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>>> Btw, if you use bash,
>>>>
>>>> Nope. CMD.EXE.
>>>
>>> oh, a masochist. My bad...
>>
>> It's the standard command interpreter on Windows. Shame it sucks, but hey.
>
> yeah, you can also use the (sub)standard text editor that comes with it and
> likewise for browser, image editor, shame whip etc...
Most of these things are easy to replace. But I'm not aware of any
replacement command shell that doesn't suck.
(I could of course use bash - but then I'd have to constantly fight
against all the Unixy stuff that doesn't belong on Windows...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/31/2012 9:52 AM, nemesis wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>>>> Btw, if you use bash,
>>>>
>>>> Nope. CMD.EXE.
>>>
>>> oh, a masochist. My bad...
>>
>> It's the standard command interpreter on Windows. Shame it sucks, but hey.
>
> yeah, you can also use the (sub)standard text editor that comes with it and
> likewise for browser, image editor, shame whip etc...
>
>
Used to use 4Dos to extend that thing, but I refuse to pay what they
want, just to add some color masking of file types, and a few commands,
how ever useful, that MS never bothered to. MS decided a "better"
solution was to create a command line "scripting host", which lacks the
sandboxing that prevents it running some system commands instead regular
applications. However, since they never gave anyone a damn clue it
exists, or provided any easy way to figure out how the hell to use it... lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/29/2012 13:55, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> ...oh, wait. Somebody already did. It's called Emacs. >_<
>>
>> You know Tcl. Go for it. That's about 10 lines of code.
>
> 10 lines that will take you at least a month to figure out. :-P
You, maybe. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> You know Tcl. Go for it. That's about 10 lines of code.
>>
>> 10 lines that will take you at least a month to figure out. :-P
>
> You, maybe. :-)
Do you have /any idea/ how many *hours* I've wasted trying to force Tk
to lay out my stuff the way I actually want it to?! >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
>>>> You know Tcl. Go for it. That's about 10 lines of code.
>>>
>>> 10 lines that will take you at least a month to figure out. :-P
>>
>> You, maybe. :-)
>
> Do you have /any idea/ how many *hours* I've wasted trying to force Tk
> to lay out my stuff the way I actually want it to?! >_<
if you were used to read or use google, you could actually learn rather
than trial-and-error.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Do you have /any idea/ how many *hours* I've wasted trying to force Tk
>> to lay out my stuff the way I actually want it to?! >_<
>
> if you were used to read or use google, you could actually learn rather
> than trial-and-error.
Well, if the user manual actually explained what all the various options
do rather than just giving a terse summary of each one, that might help.
I doubt Google is going to find anything other than the online copy of
said manual. It's not like Google answers questions; it can only find
content that actually /exists/ in the first place.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/2/2012 8:01, Invisible wrote:
> manual. It's not like Google answers questions; it can only find content
> that actually /exists/ in the first place.
LMGTFY.
https://www.google.com/search?q=tcl+tk&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
