New guy question
aleaxit at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 13 00:23:46 CEST 2001
"D-Man" <dsh8290 at rit.edu> wrote in message
news:mailman.992364979.25779.python-list at python.org...
> Some dinosaurs aren't all that old ;-). I don't think the shell on
> NT/2000 is any better, except maybe the screen drawing is less buggy
> (helps for bash, vim, less, man, mutt, etc.).
Oh come on, we just went over this -- would you rather have:
C:\> peep 2>err.txt
run peep with stderr redirection, a la NT, or run peep with
stdout redirected and an argument of 2, a la 95/98, for
example...?! And how can a shell where you can run
foo.py directly "not be any better" than one where you
just *can't* extend the range of executable extensions?
Again, NT is the former, 95/98 the latter. Specifically,
cmd.exe in one case, command.com in the other. And
don't let me get started about how the *consoles* (not
strictly a shell problem, but that's where you run shells)
behave for copy and paste in the two systems, etc, etc... !!!
bash may well be better than either, but that's no excuse
for ignoring the large differences between them. And
they're all in NT/cmd.exe's favor...
More information about the Python-list