I've seen posts here asking how to accomplish this
or that relatively complex task using bash scripts.

So I'm gonna suggest something horrible ...

I do have lots of bash scripts, but there comes
a complexity POINT where it's no longer the
scripting language of choice.

Bash has been extended over the decades, they keep
trying to find ways to add new capabilities to a
very basic interpreter. Thing is, that makes the
syntax obscure, oft ridiculous, oft POORLY-
documented too.

So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
this point and the language is MUCH more self-
documenting than bash.

I have some programs that actually write and
execute little temporary Python scripts because
it's JUST A LOT EASIER to do whatever in Python.

So, consider it.

26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>
> Bash has been extended over the decades, they keep
> trying to find ways to add new capabilities to a
> very basic interpreter. Thing is, that makes the
> syntax obscure, oft ridiculous, oft POORLY-
> documented too.
>
> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
> documenting than bash.

It's purely personal preference. Python solves your issues with
an extended language by breaking backwards compatibility. I don't
really mind the obscure nature of Bash, but broken execution of
old Python scripts has caused me to even avoid using Python scripts
written by others wherever possible. So your priorities opposite to
mine.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:

<snip>

> So I'm gonna suggest something horrible ...

<snip>

> Bash has been extended over the decades, they keep
> trying to find ways to add new capabilities to a
> very basic interpreter. Thing is, that makes the
> syntax obscure, oft ridiculous, oft POORLY-
> documented too.

This happens to many languages as they age :)

> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
> documenting than bash.

Same has been said about using Perl(1) over bash (sh),
and even using c instead of sh in the real old days for
complex logic :)

And true, if logic is complex, people should consider
using at least a different scripting language, but with
an eye towards portability. There are systems other
than Linux that may not have python available.

<snip>

--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

On 11/27/22 3:56 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>
>> Bash has been extended over the decades, they keep
>> trying to find ways to add new capabilities to a
>> very basic interpreter. Thing is, that makes the
>> syntax obscure, oft ridiculous, oft POORLY-
>> documented too.
>>
>> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
>> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
>> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
>> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
>> documenting than bash.
>
> It's purely personal preference. Python solves your issues with
> an extended language by breaking backwards compatibility. I don't
> really mind the obscure nature of Bash, but broken execution of
> old Python scripts has caused me to even avoid using Python scripts
> written by others wherever possible. So your priorities opposite to
> mine.

Well, by all means use Python3 ... that should
give you good compatibility for at least a decade.
In some ways there's a weird advantage to Python2
now that it's "dead" - no longer being extended/
changed - but I suspect it is going to creep out
of the picture fairly soon now. In Winders I think
you have to manually install it, and they keep
trying to convince you that you shouldn't.

Bash/csh and friends do have a "legacy" advantage,
but it's LESS these days - and what they CAN'T do,
or can't do without horrific syntax/logic twists
and turns, tends to put me off more and more.

It's a pity that nobody ever put the time in to make
a good 'C' interpreter - one that could use all the
latest GCC/Clang libraries - hey, I'd be happy with
Tiny-C. But, it's a LOT of work. There IS one ...
but you have to pay big $$$ even for the 'student'
license.

However I DO stick by the "self-documenting" aspect
of Python - it's LOT easier to tell what's going on
at a glance, even if you haven't glanced for years.
Also all my Python scripts also have more comments
than actual program lines, a sort of narrative. You
can take that and re-create it in several other
languages quite easily. My next fave is Pascal,
just finished an app in that the other day. 'C'
I tend to reserve more for "system-level" stuff
(and the 'string handling' convenience is nil).
A speck of FORTRAN too - mostly for fun now (and
perhaps to inspire (or torment) my successors who
seem to think Python is the alpha and omega of
what they need to know :-)

Long LONG back, the thing that initially attracted me
to Unix was the C-shell ... imagine - a real-ish
programming language instead of .bat files ! I've
since found how limited (and again oft poorly
documented) C-Shell is ... but to someone stuck
working in early DOS it seemed SO great. Alas Unix
was $$$ back in those days ... Xenix and SCO ....

On 11/27/22 5:13 PM, John McCue wrote:
> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> So I'm gonna suggest something horrible ...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Bash has been extended over the decades, they keep
>> trying to find ways to add new capabilities to a
>> very basic interpreter. Thing is, that makes the
>> syntax obscure, oft ridiculous, oft POORLY-
>> documented too.
>
> This happens to many languages as they age :)

Yes. The initial concept was great ... but annoying
bastards keep insisting you graft more and more weird
stuff onto it. The original simple interpreter/whatever
gets funky patches, then more patches, then patches to
the patches, until ......

There are some problems with Python, esp in going
from P2 to P3, but the language is pretty much
self-documenting and powerful enough so the (maybe)
beautiful core doesn't have to be corrupted into
oblivion to handle the Latest Thing. P3 had a slow
start, but now it's fully up to speed and seems
altogether smoother and more 'with it' than P2.

>> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
>> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
>> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
>> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
>> documenting than bash.
>
> Same has been said about using Perl(1) over bash (sh),
> and even using c instead of sh in the real old days for
> complex logic :)

The c-shell does have its charms ... but a lot fewer
use it and thus the docs/tricks tend to be poorer.
I was trying to use it last year for what seemed
a "simple" thing and could not figure out how to
get there. Again that wound up being done in Python ...

Perl ... one of those "weird syntax" languages, I have
a visceral hate for it. I can do little tweaks if badly
needed but otherwise I stay clear. I'm not sure Perl
is REALLY any more stable than Python. Can't say I love
Java either, but it IS quite powerful and well-documented
... another fair choice.

But despite personal likes, if your app is not heavily
speed dependent, say I/O-bound, then one of the popular
interpreted languages will be perfectly good and perhaps
more "handy" than 'C'/Pascal/FORTRAN/Rust/etc.

> And true, if logic is complex, people should consider
> using at least a different scripting language, but with
> an eye towards portability. There are systems other
> than Linux that may not have python available.

Ummmmmmmm ... no ... I think *everything* has Python
at this point. You can even get a fair subset for some
of the 32-bit microcontrollers ...
https://micropython.org/
https://github.com/andersm/TNKernel-PIC32

"26C.Z969" <26C.Z969@noaada.net> writes:
> I've seen posts here asking how to accomplish this
> or that relatively complex task using bash scripts.
>
> So I'm gonna suggest something horrible ...
>
> I do have lots of bash scripts, but there comes
> a complexity POINT where it's no longer the
> scripting language of choice.

>
> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
> PYTHON instead.

I've agreed completely so far, until this last point.

Personally, I just find C a lot more comfortable to use than Python.

So I'd be inclined to change that last sentence to something like:

"So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping bash, even c-shell, and
using the most comfortable full-featured language of your choice."
--
My wife says I have two faults:
I don't listen and something else.

On 11/27/22 11:21 PM, Jack Strangio wrote:
> "26C.Z969" <26C.Z969@noaada.net> writes:
>> I've seen posts here asking how to accomplish this
>> or that relatively complex task using bash scripts.
>>
>> So I'm gonna suggest something horrible ...
>>
>> I do have lots of bash scripts, but there comes
>> a complexity POINT where it's no longer the
>> scripting language of choice.
>
>>
>> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
>> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
>> PYTHON instead.
>
> I've agreed completely so far, until this last point.
>
> Personally, I just find C a lot more comfortable to use than Python.

I like 'C' also ... but the "string handling" IS
horrible :-) Gimme FORTRAN/PYTHON string slicing
any day ! For some reason, many of the apps I do
these days involve parsing/analyzing lots of strings
in weird ways ........

My first programs were not in BASIC like most from
the older days, but on a PDP-11 owned by a college
- in 'C' and FORTRAN - mostly TTY interface and punch
cards (I think the Old Guys did that on purpose, there
WERE terminals ... maybe they thought such fancy
stuff was just a flash in the pan and punch-cards
and paper-tape would make a big come-back :-)

Python also has VAST libraries, some of which do
complex things that are just sandpaper TP to do
in 'C' ... in just a line or two.

As such it HAS A RESPECTABLE PLACE and is, at this
point, ubiquitous - Win/Mac/-IX, even some of the
microcontrollers.

> So I'd be inclined to change that last sentence to something like:
>
> "So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping bash, even c-shell, and
> using the most comfortable full-featured language of your choice."

I can agree with that 99% ...

But SOMETIMES an interpreted language works better.

The past weeks I was having problems with an app and
the best solution was to have it actually write a
small customized Python script and execute it. To try
the same work-around with 'C'/Pascal/Rust/etc you'd
have to write it AND compile it AND execute - which
would be slower and clunkier. As hundreds of thousands
of files were being processed ... well ......

Some may prefer Perl or Java - but there ARE odd niches
where interpreted languages are just much "better" for
the need of the moment. Python is good in that it usually
works about the same way for Win or -ix ... and you
can use the platform lib to adjust for any small diffs.

Hey, found "PC-BASIC" for Linux ... a fairly faithful
re-do of MS/IBM "GW-BASIC" ... even does the graphics.
That's interpreted AND clearer than bash :-)

On 27/11/2022 20:56, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>
>> Bash has been extended over the decades, they keep
>> trying to find ways to add new capabilities to a
>> very basic interpreter. Thing is, that makes the
>> syntax obscure, oft ridiculous, oft POORLY-
>> documented too.
>>
>> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
>> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
>> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
>> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
>> documenting than bash.
>
> It's purely personal preference. Python solves your issues with
> an extended language by breaking backwards compatibility. I don't
> really mind the obscure nature of Bash, but broken execution of
> old Python scripts has caused me to even avoid using Python scripts
> written by others wherever possible. So your priorities opposite to
> mine.
>
What you are saying is that in the end context matters.

I myself to maintain my own private network use C extensively to do
what most would do in bash PERL or python, simply because I cant be
arsed to spend weeks learning yet another language.

And C usually succeeds when some heath robinson arrangement of pipes
forks, redirection and ill documented utilities breaks.

But as far as distributing that widely - you would have to make it part
of everyone's distro tree and have it being recompiled with whatever
library set was current at the time. Yuk!

Bash is OK, as long as I dont have to write it, debug it or modify it.

--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 2022-11-27 10:19 PM, 26C.Z969 wrote:
> On 11/27/22 3:56 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bash has been extended over the decades, they keep
>>> trying to find ways to add new capabilities to a
>>> very basic interpreter. Thing is, that makes the
>>> syntax obscure, oft ridiculous, oft POORLY-
>>> documented too.
>>>
>>> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
>>> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
>>> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
>>> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
>>> documenting than bash.
>>
>> It's purely personal preference. Python solves your issues with
>> an extended language by breaking backwards compatibility. I don't
>> really mind the obscure nature of Bash, but broken execution of
>> old Python scripts has caused me to even avoid using Python scripts
>> written by others wherever possible. So your priorities opposite to
>> mine.
>
>
>   Well, by all means use Python3 ... that should
>   give you good compatibility for at least a decade.
>   In some ways there's a weird advantage to Python2
>   now that it's "dead" - no longer being extended/
>   changed - but I suspect it is going to creep out
>   of the picture fairly soon now. In Winders I think
>   you have to manually install it, and they keep
>   trying to convince you that you shouldn't.
>
>   [...]

> they keep trying to convince you that you shouldn't.

No they don't?

On 2022-11-27, 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
> documenting than bash.

Mmmm... no thanks. After working with *nix systems for over 40 years
I'm not really interested in learning a new language. Even Perl is
too new for me to bother with. If I need a custom utility and a shell
script won't do I write it in C.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2022-11-29, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-11-27, 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
>> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
>> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
>> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
>> documenting than bash.
>
> Mmmm... no thanks. After working with *nix systems for over 40 years
> I'm not really interested in learning a new language. Even Perl is
> too new for me to bother with. If I need a custom utility and a shell
> script won't do I write it in C.
>

I'd like to encourage people to check out the links in Mr. Blake's
sig...which did not seem to reproduce here. Hmmm. Well, see one of his
posts directly.

The videos of what happened (and may still be happening) in Austrailia are
pretty sobering.

pH in Aptos

Am 29.11.22 um 03:05 schrieb Roger Blake:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
> Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
> The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
> There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
> Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Troll!

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 29.11.22 um 04:16 schrieb pH:
> On 2022-11-29, Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2022-11-27, 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
>>> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
>>> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
>>> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
>>> documenting than bash.
>>
>> Mmmm... no thanks. After working with *nix systems for over 40 years
>> I'm not really interested in learning a new language. Even Perl is
>> too new for me to bother with. If I need a custom utility and a shell
>> script won't do I write it in C.
>>
>
> I'd like to encourage people to check out the links in Mr. Blake's
> sig...which did not seem to reproduce here. Hmmm. Well, see one of his
> posts directly.
>
> The videos of what happened (and may still be happening) in Austrailia are
> pretty sobering.

Conspiracy theories and completely OT.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 11/28/22 4:19 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 27/11/2022 20:56, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Bash has been extended over the decades, they keep
>>> trying to find ways to add new capabilities to a
>>> very basic interpreter. Thing is, that makes the
>>> syntax obscure, oft ridiculous, oft POORLY-
>>> documented too.
>>>
>>> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
>>> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
>>> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
>>> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
>>> documenting than bash.
>>
>> It's purely personal preference. Python solves your issues with
>> an extended language by breaking backwards compatibility. I don't
>> really mind the obscure nature of Bash, but broken execution of
>> old Python scripts has caused me to even avoid using Python scripts
>> written by others wherever possible. So your priorities opposite to
>> mine.
>>
> What you are saying is that in the end context matters.
>
> I myself to maintain my own private network use C extensively  to do
> what most would do in bash PERL or python, simply because I cant be
> arsed to spend weeks learning yet another language.
>
> And C usually succeeds when some heath robinson arrangement of pipes
> forks, redirection and ill documented utilities breaks.

Straight-up 'C' is VERY good, no question. I quit fooling
with CPP, just didn't see any practical advantage for the
stuff I'm doing. Whatever it is, you CAN do it in 'C'.
However a relevant question is "how easily/quickly ?".

Sometimes a few lines of Python can replace dozens or
more lines of 'C' and encapsulate what you WANTED to
do much more simply and clearly. There are plusses
there and, as I mentioned, the Python libraries are
EXTENSIVE these days ... usually two or three different
approaches to the problem of the moment. Interpreters
can have advantages in some cases too.

So, IMHO, you tune your development language to the
job/time-frame of the moment.

> But as far as distributing that widely - you would have to make e it part
> of everyone's distro tree and have it being recompiled with whatever
> library set was current at the time. Yuk!

Indeed. The library situation is a serious problem with
Linux IMHO. Some of that can be handled by writing your
code and makes and such so if NeatoLib-0.2.3 is replaced
by NeatoLib-0.2.4 there won't be a horrible problem ...
you can bet 0.2.4 does what the other did, just added
one or two tweaks. And if it actually doesn't, well,
you'll know soon enough. If you really want code that's
good for the LONG term it's actually kinda difficult
in the current environoment/practices picture. Distrib
the executable instead instead of re-compiling on the
target boxes if possible (ok, that's not "open source",
but hey you CAN stick the source in the package too).

> Bash is OK, as long as I dont have to write it, debug it or modify it.

Bash is good for what it's good for. The more complex
the task though, the worse it is. Then you have to move
up to something more heavy-duty ... your choice. 'C'
might be it, Python or Perl might be better depending.
My point was that they've made bash almost inscrutible
these days because of long-term feature creep combined
with a lightweight simple parser/interpreter. If you
MUST use one of the standard shells for difficult tasks
you're probably better off with c-shell instead.

On 2022-11-29, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Troll!

Moron!

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 11/28/22 23:12, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.11.22 um 03:05 schrieb Roger Blake:
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
>> Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
>> The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
>> There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
>> Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Troll!
>
Drop him in your filter. Do not repeat his message.
bliss

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 2022-11-29, Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> Drop him in your filter. Do not repeat his message.

Lack of intelligent responses noted. The two of you are welcome to dwell in
the fog of Official Truth.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed,
(hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins,
most of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am 29.11.22 um 21:13 schrieb Roger Blake:
> On 2022-11-29, Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> Drop him in your filter. Do not repeat his message.
>
> Lack of intelligent responses noted. The two of you are welcome to dwell in
> the fog of Official Truth.
>
> "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed,
> (hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins,
> most of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken

Conspiracy theories.

You are one of this uneducated that really do not know what scientific
evidence really means.

Adieu.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 11/29/22 5:06 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.11.22 um 21:13 schrieb Roger Blake:
>> On 2022-11-29, Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> Drop him in your filter. Do not repeat his message.
>>
>> Lack of intelligent responses noted. The two of you are welcome to dwell in
>> the fog of Official Truth.
>>
>> "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed,
>> (hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins,
>> most of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken
>
> Conspiracy theories.

No, it's exactly what Machiavelli recommended.

And if there are no real reds under the beds,
INVENT them.

It is important for the leaders to maintain the
state of "emergency" because that gives them
power/authority/license to do things they'd
never get away with normally.

> You are one of this uneducated that really do not know what scientific
> evidence really means.

"Evidence" can be spun any way you want.

The Truth does NOT set people free - UNDERSTANDING
those truths does ... and said "understanding" is
hostage to skilled manipulators.

But I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with
Linux/Bash ......

On 11/28/22 9:05 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2022-11-27, 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
>> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
>> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
>> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
>> documenting than bash.
>
> Mmmm... no thanks. After working with *nix systems for over 40 years
> I'm not really interested in learning a new language. Even Perl is
> too new for me to bother with. If I need a custom utility and a shell
> script won't do I write it in C.
>

Fairly wise ... but there ARE worthy intermediate
solutions between Bash and 'C' ..... and some are
more flexible than Bash or 'C', depending on the
exact need of the moment.

Am 30.11.22 um 05:04 schrieb 26C.Z969:
> On 11/29/22 5:06 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> You are one of this uneducated that really do not know what scientific
>> evidence really means.
>
> "Evidence" can be spun any way you want.

You are uneducated: *QED*

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 11/30/22 12:22 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 30.11.22 um 05:04 schrieb 26C.Z969:
>> On 11/29/22 5:06 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> You are one of this uneducated that really do not know what scientific
>>> evidence really means.
>>
>> "Evidence" can be spun any way you want.
>
> You are uneducated: *QED*

You are delusional and clearly slept through
history class (do they HAVE history classes
anymore ?).

Machiavelli is still The Bible for aspiring
political figures. True believers will rise
high - better to rule in hell, right .... ?

Since you seem to have nothing to say about
Linux you are now plonked ... better uses
for my bandwidth ........

On 11/28/22 4:10 PM, 8c065a96 wrote:
> On 2022-11-27 10:19 PM, 26C.Z969 wrote:
>> On 11/27/22 3:56 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> 26C.Z969 <26C.Z969@noaada.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Bash has been extended over the decades, they keep
>>>> trying to find ways to add new capabilities to a
>>>> very basic interpreter. Thing is, that makes the
>>>> syntax obscure, oft ridiculous, oft POORLY-
>>>> documented too.
>>>>
>>>> So, once you reach The Point - consider skipping
>>>> bash, even c-shell, and using the ubiquitous
>>>> PYTHON instead. The libraries are EXTENSIVE at
>>>> this point and the language is MUCH more self-
>>>> documenting than bash.
>>>
>>> It's purely personal preference. Python solves your issues with
>>> an extended language by breaking backwards compatibility. I don't
>>> really mind the obscure nature of Bash, but broken execution of
>>> old Python scripts has caused me to even avoid using Python scripts
>>> written by others wherever possible. So your priorities opposite to
>>> mine.
>>
>>
>>    Well, by all means use Python3 ... that should
>>    give you good compatibility for at least a decade.
>>    In some ways there's a weird advantage to Python2
>>    now that it's "dead" - no longer being extended/
>>    changed - but I suspect it is going to creep out
>>    of the picture fairly soon now. In Winders I think
>>    you have to manually install it, and they keep
>>    trying to convince you that you shouldn't.
>>
>>    [...]
>
>> they keep trying to convince you that you shouldn't.
>
> No they don't?

The MAKERS of Python2 generally don't, but
others DO - "NO SECURITY UPDATES !!! DON'T
USE PYTHON2 !!!" .....

Just don't use it where said updates are gonna
be especially relevant .......

And, come on, not TOO difficult to update to
Python3 .......

On 29/11/2022 22:06, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 29.11.22 um 21:13 schrieb Roger Blake:
>> On 2022-11-29, Bobbie Sellers <bliss@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> Drop him in your filter. Do not repeat his message.
>>
>> Lack of intelligent responses noted. The two of you are welcome to dwell in
>> the fog of Official Truth.
>>
>> "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed,
>> (hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins,
>> most of them imaginary." --H.L. Mencken
>
> Conspiracy theories.
>
> You are one of this uneducated that really do not know what scientific
> evidence really means.
>
Or is it rather that you are one of the half educated who think that
'scientific evidence;' actually means something, or can be proven to
make something true?

> Adieu.
>

--
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

On 30/11/2022 05:22, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 30.11.22 um 05:04 schrieb 26C.Z969:
>> On 11/29/22 5:06 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>> You are one of this uneducated that really do not know what scientific
>>> evidence really means.
>>
>> "Evidence" can be spun any way you want.
>
> You are uneducated: *QED*
>
You are overeducated *QED*.

--
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy