View Single Post
Old 04 April 2015, 15:22   #91
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 3,447
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
What would you suggest replacing it with? In what ways is it inadequate? It's a million years ahead of the cmd.exe included with windows.
I don't even understand why you're comparing it to cmd.exe. Is that the state of the art now, or what? It's that kind of complacency that makes things stand still at a 1970s level.
Just open a terminal in OSX and try to write a character with a value higher than 7-bit ASCII and watch the system come up with innovative ways to destroy what you just wrote. Try to treat it as a part of the overall system, with the same line editing commands as the rest of the system, and watch your terminal being filled with unparsed control codes. Ask yourself why you must use control and escape sequences to do things which could be done using menus, windows or the system qualifier keys. Or why something like KingCON or VincED seems heathenous to users of *sh shells.

Originally Posted by kolla View Post
More *ix like paths could have simplified porting of software and made the system less "schizofrenic", almost any networked Amiga today support unix style notation for paths simply because of all the software requiring it. It's messy, to say the least.
Bad ports are bad, I think that's what you're saying.

Originally Posted by kolla View Post
Resource tracking would helped a lot for stability.
Agreed. Of course, it was not an option in 1985, but the question is to how to introduce it after the fact.

Last edited by TCD; 04 April 2015 at 17:50. Reason: Back-to-back posts merged.
idrougge is offline  
Page generated in 0.03928 seconds with 10 queries