Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Jan 2007 00:43 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 205513
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: In concept it is better than UNIX shells
by codehead78 on Thu 25th Jan 2007 03:33
in reply to "RE: In concept it is better than UNIX shells"
I'm not so sure that's such a great idea. Sure, it makes it a bit less of a mess, but what do you do when you're trying to pipe to/from a 3rd party program that doesn't support this object model?
Serialize the object to text. It's easy to go from an object to text, but not the other way.
There is a reason we have the notion of structures in programming languages and don't store everything in strings.
RE[3]: In concept it is better than UNIX shells
by rajj on Thu 25th Jan 2007 03:56
in reply to "RE[2]: In concept it is better than UNIX shells"
RE[2]: In concept it is better than UNIX shells
by acamfield on Thu 25th Jan 2007 15:05
in reply to "RE: In concept it is better than UNIX shells"
And what happens when windoze in their infinite wisdom changes an object class but doesn't teach the other cmdlets how to deal with the new properties. Piping works because it's simple and every Unix/Linux CLI program understands it. This is a typical MS answer for a problem that doesn't exit.







Member since:
2006-01-16
Passing objects around just makes more sense.
I'm not so sure that's such a great idea. Sure, it makes it a bit less of a mess, but what do you do when you're trying to pipe to/from a 3rd party program that doesn't support this object model?