🚀 go-pugleaf

[ these comments pertain to the appended message from Pete G. ]

The 'visual shell' could be a way to automatically generate complex
shell scripts suing the syntax that you work out.  Just like Power
Windows (tm) does for creating code that creates windows.

 
Dana Bourgeois @ Cup.Portal.Com

================ included post ================

In  <7072@sugar.hackercorp.com> (18 Nov),
Peter da Silva (peter@sugar.hackercorp.com) writes:
> About 6 years ago I got a bug up my ass about pipes being strictly linear.
> I played with various "better" shells, and implemented a couple of syntaxes.
> Working with a *text* interface I could never get anything better, though I
> must admit ksh has made a bit of a breakthrough on the output side...
>
> But...
>  [... goes on to outline a "visual shell" scheme...]

Yes -- I pretty much agree.  Prescribing multi-way links in ANY textual
language is bound to get pretty hairy.  I don't foresee ever people typing
command lines like that.  I've been trying it that way to test out my
manifold pipes, and -- unless I've planned it out on paper first -- I
ALWAYS end up chasing around to find which pipes I've left hanging THIS
time...!  Errors are always recoverable, but a naive user could get lost
awfully fast.  On the other hand, if you're willing to spend a little
effort debugging your scripts, I think it's very worthwhile to have such
a facility available.

A visual, two-dimensional, way of laying out your pipes would be ideal.
I've dreamed of such many times too.  Even then, though, I'm not sure
that I see Joe/Jolene user bothering with drawing a layout for a single
command sequence.  The end product would have to be some sort of executable
file -- a script again, I would guess -- that would be used repeatedly.

                                            -- Pete --