the es shell, a shell with higher order functions (that doesn't suck as much)

> higher order function and lambdas
> rich return types
> syntax that's not shit
> operators are represented as functions so you can override/extend the shell capabilities
> exception support (although not the best error handling framework is enough for shell scripting)
> array support

seriously, what's your excuse for still using bash?

https://wryun.github.io/es-shell/
https://wryun.github.io/es-shell/paper.html

>>105808856 (OP)
Did anyone rewrite it in rust?

>>105808856 (OP)
it came with my distro

>>105808865
Which distro?

>Unices
Why

>>105809141
That's how they were called back in the days

>>105808856 (OP)
Literally just PowerShell

>>105808864
Just run it through c2rust and call it a day.

>>105809691
It may looks like that if you're literally retarded

>>105808856 (OP)
The problem with this type of thing is that we are now in an age where everything is a social problem, not a technical problem. Previously, most social problems were handled by academia and academia adjacent roles providing minimum sustenance for faggots who want to yell at the world about some pet issue, and who actually know they're wrong, and enjoy being wrong along with the mild BDSM pleasure involved with it. I knew a guy who thought Icon was the best thing ever and devoted his life to it. He screamed at the world nonstop about it. Every single development in the real world that simply ignored Icon was a minor humiliation for him. He was happy.

What we have done now is dispersed all of these faggots into the wind, and they drift to Earth, find some God forsaken corner of shit, and jerk themselves off nonstop while viciously attacking anyone they see as interlopers. Again, this is a social problem. Unfortunately, things like this shell are simply fertile soil not to accomplish anything of real worth, but to function as a sort of "goon cave" for such types.

Even though the concept has use, unfortunately in the situation we're in, if everyone who ever thought "what shell scripting is *really* lacking is higher order functions" were genocided immediately, the world would be a net better place.

>>105810208
How did you manage to write all that schizo shit without addressing anything related to the object of the thread is mildly amusing

> everyone who ever thought "what shell scripting is *really* lacking is higher order functions"
The point is not **only** the higher order function support (which is something extremely useful to have) but the sum of the features introduced by es (or whatever other piece of sw), among the higher order function support which allow great extendability by combining simple concepts

The problem in general is the same old illness that infect technology: iterative evolution + going outside original scope + backward compatibility for which bash is a perfect example. The day we stop adding shit over and over[1] and realize that sometimes is better throwing stuff will be the day technology will be saved

[1] See Linux, HTTP hack for sessions, browsers, cloud computing, C++ and programming languages in general, bash

> Even though the concept has use
Nice straw-man faggot but we are not talking about "concepts", but a concrete software

>>105810845
You are the type of angry faggot I was talking about. Please go back to your es goon cave and write functional shell scripts on your research OS VM that runs on your faculty issued Windows 11. I hear Icon is nice too, give it a shot.

>>105811346
>You are the type of angry faggot I was talking about
You basically yapped about nothing and implicitly admitted that you are not able to weight the goodness of some piece of sw if not used by the majority

Thankfully even you retards are useful for the economy of discussions, letting me have an opportunity for bumping the thread while awaiting for someone who can contribute concretely to the thread

Thank you wise anon who "saw everything" in life and now can tell us that nothing matters really

>>105808856 (OP)
I'm not having javascript in my main terminal.
Their choice syntactic styling, gives me doubts about code of quality.

>>105812320
There's no js in the es source, probably some script/test. At least I saw no js code in the source

> Their choice syntactic styling, gives me doubts about code of quality.
You don't have to have any doubt, the code is there
Also the syntax is great, way better then bash or any other shell language on the opposite

The snippet in your pic looks good

> {} for blocks
> let () for local scoping
> @ args { body} for lambdas

I dont need any of that, and actually switching to it or trying to use it would be annoying

>>105812125
>Thank you wise anon who "saw everything" in life and now can tell us that nothing matters really
You are most welcome. And it's not "nothing matters", it's "es doesn't matter, and you don't matter", but close enough and thanks for the kind gold stranger.

>>105810208
It's a mixture of analysis paralysis masturbation, where some people keep forever discussing things like func() vs func2(), with the fact some people are too insecure to say "Hey I made X", so they instead say "AAAAAAAAAH Y IS DESTROYING THE WORLD SO YOU MUST USE X"

https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Awryun%2Fes-shell++language%3AJavaScript&type=code

>>105813334
>>105812320
> I'm not having javascript in my main terminal.
There's no javascript in the source, it's github that detects es code as js

>>105813334
>Sign in to search code on GitHub
>Before you can access our code search functionality please sign in or create a free account.

>higher order function and lambdas
>rich return types
>operators are represented as functions so you can override/extend the shell capabilities
>exception support (although not the best error handling framework is enough for shell scripting)
>array support
PowerShell has these.
>syntax that's not shit
PowerShell doesn't have this, but looking at es, neither does it.

>>105809691
>>105813380
At least PowerShell has direct access to all of .NET. Even using Python as a shell makes more sense than this.

>>105813406
>At least PowerShell has direct access to all of .NET
That's actually a symptoms of featuritis, a shell shouldn't have an object system or access a complex runtime. If you need that you use a general purpose programming language

> Even using Python as a shell makes more sense than this.
That's completely idiotic. Using python for tasks that should be accomplished mostly by command composition and filtering sounds like a torture. To each their own I guess

>>105813351
jobless anon spotted
Do you even tech?

>>105813435
Sounds like you've never tried either. There's no reason to have and use a separate scripting language in a shell versus scripts.
Being able to pipe strongly typed objects between scripts and commands instead of parsing and reparsing text is incredibly useful.
>object system or access a complex runtime. If you need that you use a general purpose programming language
That's the point isn't it? Instead of needing to learn 3 separate languages for shell > script > programming language, I can do it all in .NET. That is incredible for productivity.
>That's completely idiotic. Using python for tasks that should be accomplished mostly by command composition and filtering sounds like a torture. To each their own I guess
I don't disagree. I just know that a Python shell exists.

>>105813435
>If you need that you use a general purpose programming language
That's what PowerShell is. It's a general purpose programming language, that is also a shell.

I wrote a couple of small scripts with it and it was nice

Okay, it's pretty fun. No direct way to make something like alias in bash, but this works:
for (prog = ls grep) {
let (p = `{which $prog}) {
fn $prog { $p --color=auto $* }
}
}

Maybe I should try daily-driving it for several weeks. It feels like a practical Scheme with some slightly weird design choices.

bump

>>105808856 (OP)
The Unix "shell" philosophy is stupid. It's basically a worse scripting language designed so you can run scripts written in better scripting languages instead of just using the better scripting language.

>>105812320
>unwind-protect
Unix trannies are literally stealing from Lisp now. They already were, but they didn't make it that obvious.

>>105813435
>That's actually a symptoms of featuritis, a shell shouldn't have an object system or access a complex runtime. If you need that you use a general purpose programming language
A real shell should expose everything the computer can do. In Mezzano and Genera, you can just write whatever Lisp you want and access any objects on the system. PowerShell does that with Windows and .NET objects. Unix "shells" are an ad hoc limitation based on low skill of the Unix programmers in the 70s. Who ever heard of a scripting language that needs to start an external process to do math?

>>105817857
>Unix trannies are literally stealing from Lisp now.
es is 30 years old
But you can't expect generafags to actually being able to read

>>105810208
Literally who asked. There is no issue having another option for a shell.
There are not many shells and each one that actually improves on something is a nice thing.
We have fucktons of ash, tch, ksh implementations.
We only use bourne shell for scripting, because that's was is most portable.
There is also no technical advantage to use batch/cmd (literally cancer) on windows over something like REXX, but you can't expect people having it installed so it has the same problem as choosing a different shell for scripting on linux/unices.

I personally would like interactive (login) perl shell with commands and pipes being shell like, not using open or backticks. Shell is nice, because it has no boilerplate over it, but when you need to do anything more it's clunky. Perl is good, but not perfect. The complete perl-ish shell for interactive use with QOL features and scripting would be amazing.

>>105817857
You can use Genera even now, y'know? There are emulators. Try it and see how nice it feels compared to something like modern Emacs. IMO it sucks, but maybe you'll enjoy it.

>>105816274
> with some slightly weird design choices
Which one?

>not Lash#Cat9
Anything else is a horrible idea.

https://arcan-fe.com/2022/10/15/whipping-up-a-new-shell-lashcat9/

>>105821427
Sell me on it. I'll read the post tomorrow and maybe try it out next weekend. What specifically can you do with Lash#Cat9 that you couldn't do with another shell? A shell with direct desktop access is interesting, but Linux only and Lua is turning me off.

>>105821811
>What specifically can you do with Lash#Cat9 that you couldn't do with another shell?
Real time updates. Embed any kind of media in shell. Swallow just werks with WM/DE support. Real job control. Split and merge tasks. Run all your shitty bash/shell scripts without worrying about incompatibility. Real interaction with WM (assuming it's Arcan, which can run Wayland/Xorg shit inside of it). Lots of other stuff.

Read the blog and see the videos for more things:

https://arcan-fe.com/2022/04/02/the-day-of-a-new-command-line-interface-shell/
https://arcan-fe.com/2024/05/17/cat9-microdosing-stash-and-list/
https://arcan-fe.com/2024/08/05/cat9-microdosing-each-and-contain/
https://arcan-fe.com/2024/09/16/a-spreadsheet-and-a-debugger-walks-into-a-shell/

Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39ob0IO2Za0

>>105821811
>Linux only
Also its not Linux only. The creator is very autistic about making sure stuff runs everywhere. He's got it running on all major kernels. I use it on OpenBSD.

If you use Arcan you can even share windows between Linux, *BSD, NT, Android and I think some Apple devices. By share windows I mean in real time. Without any of the crappy things that you have to do when sharing stuff with Xorg server or god forbid other remote desktop stuff.

I regularly run games running at 60fps on desktop and drag/drop the window over to laptop when I want to leave the room. Entire application transfers fine without dropping frames. I've even moved it from desktop -> laptop -> home server -> tablet -> another laptop just because I can. Works with any X11 application. Works with wayland stuff too I think but I don't use it anywhere on my network so I can't test for myself. Arcan is really amazing.

Right now my LAN is a mix of OpenBSD, FreeBSD, old DOS/NT shit and one lone Gentoo machine that'll be getting retired soon for FreeBSD. Since I've given up on trying to unfuck Linux all together. It's so much work I decided just to roll my own BSD.

>bring up Cat9/Arcan
>thread dies
Every time. It's like being the last person using SourceMage :(

I use bash because it just works and build systems, scripts, everything always assumes it's running on bash.

bump

>what if bash but slightly less shit
nah, i'll just use an alt-lang if i need small programs

>>105822738
Thanks for all the links. I'll read them throughout the week.
>>105822812
That does sound cool. I'm glad the shell is cross-platform.
>It's so much work I decided just to roll my own BSD.
I would do it too, but drivers and software support only just recently got workable on Linux. I feel I'd end up hitting too many dead ends on BSD.
>>105824204
That's what you get for choosing software based on functionality instead of popularity. I'll probably make a thread after I've read through the blog posts and played with it a bit.

>>105822812
desu I don't find the cat9 ideas particularity suitable for idea of computing.
it's cool overall but it's still something that basically add a layer on top of existing flawed software and the selling point seems like focused heavily on a terminal emulator with a window manager and job managing structure
The media support is out of scope for an interactive/sciptable shell when all your OSes nowadays come up with graphics and a window manager. It probably makes more sense assuming arcan-ware as the main stack but as today it suffers from the same flaws of the Plan 9 terminal emulator,which doens't work as good outside Plan 9.

Tbh the only somewhat objective critics I can make is why making a new "modern" terminal emulator and still emulating ancient line oriented input teletypes and read-only history and outputs in 2025. To me it doesn't make sense, especially when you experienced rc/9term under Plan 9

I'm more interested in your opinion on BSDs since it's rare to find heavy bsd users on /g/

>>105808856 (OP)
I dont understand what this even is. CMD is magic to me. can I use this for something if i dont know triggernomatry or whatever?

>>105822738
so you can display anime pictures in the terminal?

>>105826572
imo it's not only slightly better language wise

> nah, i'll just use an alt-lang if i need small programs
If your small programs relies on executing on redirecting input/output between existing utilities you are going to do it the hard way without any reason by using common programming languages
shell interaction and scripting has a well defined use case where it's objectively the best tool for the job (assuming UNIX-like computing model)

>>105813351
Here you go, anon.

>>105827073
>redirecting input/output between existing utilities
why do people imply this as some arcane task only shells can do?

>>105809822
It's significantly worse than PowerShell at being a shell I'll give you that

>>105827658
Who said anything about "being able"?
The point is that first of all, the shell is interactive which is something you don't have with gpl except from some languages like lisps that support REPL based development

Aside from that, gpls don't support launching programs as first class operation, therefore you need to wrap the execution in a fork/thread

Feel free to rewrite this shell command in your programming language of choice

make >output.log 2>error.log

which is a very simple command that write the sdout of make into a file and the errors to a error log file

>>105827831
nta but when writing a scheme->bash transpiler I handled 1 level of redirection with a redirect keyword like (redirect (echo (+ 1 2)) "file"), to handle multiple levels a channels keyword seems appropriate where you additionally give file descriptors like 1, 2, or a path

I didn't support here documents (<<) here strings (<<<) descriptor duplication ([n]<&word) or moving descriptors ([n]<&digit-, [n]>&digit-), it gets quite complicated as coprocs can be redirected and inherit their descriptors

>>105827679
look at >>105809822

>>105828428
the world is engineered to cater to average skill nobility like me, you are nothing

>>105828428
Name 1 thing es can do that pwsh cannot. The syntax is similar, es can't run on Windows, and es doesn't have .NET so you need a separate scripting language to go with it. It's a toy and nothing more.

>>105808856 (OP)
I use Powershell

Did someone say ES?

>>105828975
>Name 1 thing es can do that pwsh cannot.
not sucking
Seriously, the idea of a shell accessing the .NET framework is extremely retarded.
If you need to access such functionalities I would just write a C# or F# "script"

It's also a nightmare from a dependability/maintainability perspective since powershell is 400K C# LOC and a conservative total of 500K LOC total vs the 9k of the es shell
500K vs the 20K of the openbsd pdksh

> The syntax is similar,
They are profoundly different, powershell is object oriented while es (or even bash) is not. That alone makes them semantically very distant

> es can't run on Windows
Thank god for that. But probably you can make it work with WLS but it's again a moot point

> and es doesn't have .NET
a shell shouldn't have to have that, especially on unix-like systems

> so you need a separate scripting language to go with it.
But my language is very easy to learn and es is extremely extendable. The moment it becomes irrelevant due to natural technology evolution I didn't spent much time dealing with learning any tool that irremediably become obsolete

> It's a toy and nothing more.
It's functionally equivalent to bash therefore as useful as that
Talking about toys, tell me more about powershell adoption lol

>>105827831
>Aside from that, gpls don't support launching programs as first class operation
Yes they do, with the call operation. On mainframes, that's how things work. Calling a program is the same as calling a function/procedure. This is the case on at least OS/360 (z/OS), Multics, and probably a lot of other mainframes. The new program can be called just like any other procedure and uses the same stack and address space. You can pass it pointers to anything in the same process, so it's not limited to string arguments.

>>105809768
but that just makes unreadable unsafe rust which might as well be worthless

>>105829981
>Multics
The last Multics machine was decommissioned in like the year 2000
z/OS is the most used OS in mainframes but very far from the most used OS for producing services. Still, linux on Z is rapidly growing in the same areas where z/OS is used and will eat its market share eventually

I still don't get it what are you trying to argue. It's not a suprise that there are OSes with very different computing models but that's not the point
Take the first 20 programming languages ordered by market share and then try to rewrite the simple command in >>105827831 and see if it's shorter and faster or support interactive usage

>>105829940
>not sucking
not an argument

>a shell shouldn't have to have that, especially on unix-like systems
>Seriously, the idea of a shell accessing the .NET framework is extremely retarded.
Seriously, you keep saying that but don't elaborate why a shell having full access to a framework a programmer is already familiar with is a bad thing.

>If you need to access such functionalities I would just write a C# or F# "script"
Why write a whole C# project or an F# script when you just need a small script? I'll tell you the same thing I told you last time, you can't compose C# or F# scripts the way you can PowerShell objects. I can write modular scripts using full .NET if necessary and compose them together. If I need more, I have that option. I can even turn around and expose my C# projects back as PowerShell modules.

>The moment it becomes irrelevant due to natural technology evolution I didn't spent much time dealing with learning any tool that irremediably become obsolete
If you are a neet and want to waste time learning useless novelty tech and cope by not investing much time into anything, that's your problem. I can reuse all my knowledge, I have vertical integration of my stack, everything is composable, and none of my time is wasted because I only continue increasing my experience with the same framework.

>It's functionally equivalent to bash therefore as useful as that
If it's functionally equivalent to bash, why not just use bash? And for that matter, bash isn't very useful. Hence why there so many alternative shells and always needs to be complemented by a proper scripting language anyway.

>Talking about toys, tell me more about powershell adoption lol
PowerShell is just the scripting extension of .NET and .NET adoption is great.

One day you will be forced to get a job, and then your appetite for wasting time on niche contrarian tech will vanish.

>>105831381
> not an argument
That's a compelling argument, just not expanded
The counterargument for that should be that "it doesn't suck"

> Seriously, you keep saying that but don't elaborate why a shell having full access to a framework a programmer is already familiar with is a bad thing
Because it violates the scope of the shell. In unix you don't use common functionalities but communicate with programs, so you don't actually need a .NET equivalent

The right tool, with the right complexity, for the right job. There is no free lunch, complexity must move someway or the other and the scope-creep of powershell reflect its adoption
If I need more than
1. automate a sequence of interaction
2. composite already existing programs
I just use a full blown programming language because I rarely just need to do complex thing like opening a new connection

> Why write a whole C# project or an F# script when you just need a small script?
Because if I have to access and orchestrate a lot of .NET functionality it's a symptom that the shell isn't the right tool anymore

> I'll tell you the same thing I told you last time, you can't compose C# or F# scripts the way you can PowerShell objects.
Then why use C# or F# ever?

> If it's functionally equivalent to bash, why not just use bash?
Because "being able to do so", which was your retarded argument, is not the only driver to choose one tool
The bash language lacks features that makes it extremely less ergonomics with no added value. That's how you judge technology in general

> And for that matter, bash isn't very useful
A shell under unix is extremely useful. Then we can argue about which shell or what functionality (or non functional requirements) makes a terminal emulator/shell better than the other

> ways needs to be complemented by a proper scripting language anyway.
That's ridiculously false

>>105831381
> One day you will be forced to get a job, and then your appetite for wasting time on niche contrarian tech will vanish.
I worked on a couple of international companies along with a brief period in a FAANG and never touched windows in all these years
Last time I worked on windows for more than a consecutive day was like the 1999

>>105813435
>a shell shouldn't have an object system or access a complex runtime
That's literally what all shells are. What do you consider piping together structured data types in POSIX shell if not this?
Having it built into the syntax to be expressed directly within the script rather than requiring shelling out so much just to do object formatting via accessing a complex foreign runtime.

>>105832605
>That's literally what all shells are. What do you consider piping together structured data types in POSIX shell if not this?
Are you seriously retarded? They are both methods of function composition but the paradigms is night and day different

The shell works, more or less, as a message passing while objects are akin to RPC. The most notably difference is the tightness of the coupling interfaces

>>105832659
Everything you wrote, I already expressed.
And it should be obvious which side of the notable differences I think makes more sense for a scripting language, especially if portability matters to you at all.

>Are you seriously retarded?
If you're gonna act that way nobody is going to want to speak with you.

>>105832701
>Everything you wrote, I already expressed.
But you didn't address my questions.

>If you're gonna act that way nobody is going to want to speak with you.
Is this supposed to be a warning of some sort? Why should I care? Is this your first day on 4chan?

>>105832729
You're silly. Maybe an LLM.

>>105832565
Dude, you came in here to advocate for a shell that is bash with more features.
People point out the syntax is similar to PowerShell, which has more features on top of that, superious object-based instead of text-based, cross-platform, has a full featured framework, and modules that provide all the features of a modern shell, and you start sperging out that that is too much features for a shell to have.

>If I need more than
>1. automate a sequence of interaction
>2. composite already existing programs
>I just use a full blown programming language because I rarely just need to do complex thing like opening a new connection
Then you don't need anything more than bash and you advocating for es makes no sense. You don't need higher order functions for that.

>That's ridiculously false
That you think all that is necessary is a shell to run commands piping text between them and full blown programs tells me you don't work inside the shell much at all.
I can query a database, csv, json files all directly into objects and start working with the data while you're still fiddling with regex patterns or starting a new project in your full blown programming language.

relevant >>105811462

>>105832579
It's funny that you yourself automatically equated getting a job with using Windows when I said no such thing.

>superious
ok rajesh still not using pwsh outside of windows server

I swear I'm not an ESL, I just don't proof read before hitting submit. Don't be a bitch.

>>105832752
>relevant >>105811462
>well_done
Unbelievable.

>>105832752
>Dude, you came in here to advocate for a shell that is bash with more features.
I never said that, the argument was that the es is more ergonomic than bash.
Lean how to read, it's important

> People point out the syntax is similar to PowerShell
It's not. If it is, then it's similar to any C-like procedural languages

> which has more features on top of that
more features are not always a good thing, especially when they duplicate across multiple technology

Case in point, Windows worked without powershell for a very long time and only recently tried to push it with scarce results, while unices relies on the shell because it's almost fucntionally essential

> superious object-based instead of text-based
I would say the opposite, message passing is more flexible and objects adds complexity that is not needed

The point of using the shell in unix is to compose programs that do something even in isolation. If you instead provide a common set of functionality that they cannot live by themselves and that can be accessed by any language of the .NET framework basically makes powershell use case extremely fuzzy

> cross-platform, has a full featured framework, and modules that provide all the features of a modern shell, and you start sperging out that that is too much features for a shell to have.
Again, If I need any of those it means that a (good engineered) shell is not the right tool anymore
The point is having less feature that perfectly fit a precise scope (of use cases) is that you can minimize the complexity of the tool and improve the dependability metric (maintainability, extensibility) and have a less learning curve and less friction when inevitably you have to migrate

> Then you don't need anything more than bash and you advocating for es makes no sense.
but es is more ergonomic which is the point in judging two Turing complete languages

>>105826721
This is probably the most important post about Cat9 which I forgot to link: https://arcan-fe.com/2025/01/27/sunsetting-cursed-terminal-emulation/

Lays out why most terminals/shells are pretty bad.

>>105832852
>It's not. If it is, then it's similar to any C-like procedural languages
Because it has braces? Get your head out of your ass.. es is based on functional programming languages, just like PowerShell and unlike C. For that reason, C also does not have higher order functions.

>more features are not always a good thing
Care to explain why? I don't care how many lines of code the shell code base is.

>especially when they duplicate across multiple technology
What duplication? Being able to access the same framework from multiple languages is the opposite of duplication. It gives one the option to use the best tool for the job.

>I would say the opposite, message passing is more flexible and objects adds complexity that is not needed
You don't have messages, you have text. Text that you as the caller must parse and format yourself from one command to the next.
It's like the gotards that think they have a simple and ergonomic language, when the reality is they're letting the compiler offload work on them as the developer. Same as you are letting your commands offload the responsibility of formatting text to you.
Strongly typed inputs are an interface and a contract to let the caller know exactly what the allowed values are. If you have two commands that input and output objects, it's trivial to pass data between them. And again, pwsh has commands to make pulling structured text into objects simple. awking and seding data back and forth is downright primitive in comparison.

(1/2 Jesus Christ)

>>105833285


>and that can be accessed by any language of the .NET framework basically makes powershell use case extremely fuzzy
login shell=pwsh
scripting=pwsh
programming=F#/C#
Use case is extremely clear to me. Neither C# nor F# can be used as a login shell and do not have shell ergonomics to make that a good idea anyway. I don't understand your confusion.

>Case in point, Windows worked without powershell for a very long time
That's because Windows used to be trash for development outside of Visual Studio. It still is, but they've been trying to catch up to modern Linux shells recently. It's about on par with the best that zsh can offer now, in terms of productivity.
>and only recently tried to push it with scarce results,
I don't know where you get that impression. The old PowerShell found a lot of success with sysadmins for being able to access and automate all parts of Windows.
The new open source version is more lightweight and makes it very appealing to have the same development environment on all platforms. No other shell can offer that.

>Again, If I need any of those it means that a (good engineered) shell is not the right tool anymore
This is ideological purism over pragmatism. The right tool for the job is one that gets the job done most efficiently. You conveniently gloss over all examples while failing to provide any of your own. While you set up a full programming environment and get into boilerplate, because you dare not ask your shell to do anything too complex, I'm already done on to the next job.

>es is more ergonomic
This seems to be your only argument and reeks of the same subjectivity as all your other arguments. Can you give concrete examples of how you find it to be more ergonomic? In which situations and why? Because I'm having a hard time seeing how would even notice the difference between bash and es if all you use shells for is simple sequences of commands and piping text between them.

(2/2)

>extensible
>higher-order functions
why not just use scheme shell?

>>105833290
>>105833285
>Because it has braces? Get your head out of your ass
That's what you were saying

> es is based on functional programming languages, just like PowerShell and unlike C.
Functional languages doesn't dictate any concrete syntax: LISP, OCaml, erlang are all functional languages with extremely diverse syntax.

powershell and es are extremely diverse, for loops have different syntax, if statements are different, exceptions are different, es support and make use of kebab-case for function and variables.
Both supporting first class function is not sufficient for stating they have similar syntax

> Care to explain why?
Because, again, there is no free lunch, complexity can't be eliminated, just moved. If 2 tools have overlapping use cases it means there's too much complexity on one tool.

> too much complexity on one tool.
I do, relatively to what problem the tool solve. Dependability is an extremely important metric in software
A smaller codebase is more extensible, portable, maintanable and learnable

> What duplication? Being able to access the same framework from multiple languages is the opposite of duplication
The duplication is on the capabilities of the shell. In unix the shell is the only way to perform high level functional composition, sending/receiving messages from existing programs, which can also be executed by themselves

Having a common framework from which you can glue pieces of functionality makes the shell less functionally essential.

> You don't have messages, you have text.
They are the same from an interface point when compared to object querying.

> ext that you as the caller must parse and format yourself from one command to the next.
That looks like a textual message

> It's like the gotards that think they have a simple and ergonomic language
Stay on topic and don't make strawmen

> If you have two commands that input and output objects, it's trivial to pass data between them.
It's also trivial to pass text

>>105833290
> login shell=pwsh
> scripting=pwsh
> programming=F#/C#
> Use case is extremely clear to me.
Good for you but you basically said that one is compiled and the other not, which doesn't answer to the question: what clear use cases makes powershell valuable aside from the interactive usage

> It's about on par with the best that zsh can offer now, in terms of productivity.
A shell surely need a ftp client and a module system. If that's your idea of what a shell should do I can see why you think powershell fit a well defined scope


> This is ideological purism over pragmatism.
Not really. The implication are tangible and measurable.

> While you set up a full programming environment and get into boilerplate, because you dare not ask your shell to do anything too complex, I'm already done on to the next job.
projecting much? If the shell cannot do something easily I use another tool

> Can you give concrete examples of how you find it to be more ergonomic?
better array support, exception, lexical scope, first class function, rich/multiple returns (not only numbers)
Do I seriously need to explain to you why those feature increase enormously the ergonomics of programming?

You would knew that if you knew bash and cared to look at the link provided the thread instead of moving the goalpost to a powershell cocksucking argument you narcissistic fag

>>105833328
which one?

>>105833481
>powershell and es are extremely diverse, for loops have different syntax, if statements are different, exceptions are different,
Syntax encompasses the functionality. es and pwsh are more similar for having first class functions, lexical scope, exceptions, none of which bash has and does not therefore have the syntax for.

>es support and make use of kebab-case for function and variables
Naming convention is such a strange thing to focus on.

>Because, again, there is no free lunch, complexity can't be eliminated, just moved.
Exactly. And the complexity is better to be offloaded onto the tool, rather than wasting one's own time handling it manually.

>Dependability is an extremely important metric in software
And an open source shell backed by one of the largest corporations is obviously much more dependable than 30 year old abandonware.

>A smaller codebase is more extensible, portable, maintanable and learnable
Now your contradicting yourself. Portable to what? It's less portable than pwsh. Why would you want extensibility? Then you would risk featuritis, which you are against. If you're not maintaining it, why do you act like this an important factor for you? You said yourself you want something simple to learn because you don't want the time wasted learning it to be too great when you inevitably abandon it.

>Having a common framework from which you can glue pieces of functionality makes the shell less functionally essential.
I don't think you know what you're talking about here. A framework exposes functions and libraries. It has nothing in common with a shell and I don't see how anyone could come to that conclusion.
Does glibc make bash less functionally essential?

(1/3)

>>105833914
>They are the same from an interface point when compared to object querying.
True, but you're avoiding the point again. Text is a less specific interface, It doesn't expose enough information about what it actually expects. It is the same as comparing weakly and strongly typed programming languages. This puts more work on the shoulders of the caller, which makes it a poor tool.

>That looks like a textual message
"that you as the caller must parse and format yourself from one command to the next."

>It's also trivial to pass text
You call writing regex patterns between every command trivial? Even if you want to try to claim that, it comes down to a matter of degree.

>>105833602
>Good for you but you basically said that one is compiled and the other not
Do not put words in my mouth so you can dismiss my point.

>what clear use cases makes powershell valuable aside from the interactive usage
If that is not a clear use case, then neither bash nor es have one at all.

>A shell surely need a ftp client and a module system. If that's your idea of what a shell should do I can see why you think powershell fit a well defined scope
Don't care whether the ftp client is in there, but the module system 100%. My idea of what a shell should do is whatever is useful and productive. And being extensible is definitely within scope. As I said, being able to extend the shell from a full programming language, all in the same framework, is helpful.

>Not really. The implication are tangible and measurable.
Yet you've provided no example of either.

>projecting much? If the shell cannot do something easily I use another tool
Any what other tool is that? Why do you keep having waving away instead of giving specifics? You said you do not use another scripting language outside yourself. You have a minimalist shell and a full blown programming language. If one cannot do something you have one other tool.

(2/3)

>>105833918
>better array support, exception, lexical scope, first class function, rich/multiple returns (not only numbers)
How are any of those useful in terms of ergonomics or even at all if all you use shells for is simple sequences of commands and piping text between them? That is what you yourself said you use shells for, and none of those come into play for that.

>Do I seriously need to explain to you why those feature increase enormously the ergonomics of programming?
Do I seriously need to point that by your own words, if you are need any of those programming language features, you should be using a full blown programming language?

>You would knew that if you knew bash and cared to look at the link provided the thread instead of moving the goalpost to a powershell cocksucking argument you narcissistic fag
Copying and pasting the feature list from the homepage is not an example of how you use them.
I think I will end here. You are a retard. You barely seem to understand the difference between a framework and a shell or even a shell and a programming language. You keep contradicting yourself and provide nothing specific to back your arguments to reciprocate what I have provided and have now devolved to childish namecalling.
Everything to you seems to comes down to a completely subjective notion of how many features you think a shell should be allowed to have.
I hope you enjoy playing with your "ergonomic" shell until you get bored and waste time on the next novelty.

Have a good night.