I've done some research, so it took a while before i could post something.
To hold it short i avoid quoting who has said what, but i summarize a little bit:
This should anwer the question which is a replacement of what, and i see this a little bit like berserk
berserker wrote:depends how you look at it.
But i don't let my personal view count in this case, as it is the view of microsoft that counts.
http://blogs.msdn.com/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-PostAttachments/00-01-91-05-67/Monad-Manifesto-_2D00_-Public.docMonad == Powershell
Monad-Manifesto wrote:Monad is the next generation platform for administrative automation.
Monad solves traditional management problems by leveraging the .Net Platform.
So this should replace the usage of these tools for system developers, testers, power users, and administrators only:
Monad-Manifesto wrote:1. A programmatic shell (e.g. sh, csh, ksh, bash)
2. A set of administrative commands (e.g. ifconfig, ps, chmod, kill)
3. A set of text manipulation utilities (e.g. awk, grep, sed).
4. Administrative GUIs layered on top of commands and utilities
This includes the cmd.exe, the complete WSH (cscript/wscript with JScript, and VBScript), and VB.
But this is explicitely for system developers, testers, power users, and administrators only:
not for default users, although a subset of the Monad Shell commands may be free to use, if not disabled by admin.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/cmd.mspx?mfr=truecmd.mspx wrote:You can use the command shell to create and edit batch files (also called scripts) to automate routine tasks:
Result: cmd.exe replaces command.com
WSH (VBScript/JScript/cscript/wscript)
This should replace qbasic, i actually haven't found the html page in internet, but i think this should be not hard to believe.
The next big task: Using Perl, Python, PHP
There are portable versions available; as only 2 links are allowed, i misuse the code-blocks,
but i only link the portable perl version, as i the other portable programs don't look trustworthy (at least in my eyes):
Code: Select all
http://strawberryperl.com/
seems to be trustworthy, because it is linked by: http://www.perl.org/
But these portables have a great disadvantage: They are really huge... the smallest is the strawberryperl:
~ 100 MB (zipped), 315 MB (unzipped)
My user profile at work is limited to 128 MB, so i cannot use them there, even if i would want.
And if i had to solve tasks at work, i even would not download these software at home,
berserker wrote:to "combine" the script into a standalone executable
In addition if developing such an application it could be, that i have to bustle between home and work,
or to completely developing it at home: Both not my favorites, and i think i'm not the only one with this opinion.
Downloading that much may even discourage most users.
In addition there are similar tools to do the same: JScript, VBScript, server sided XML/XSLT/JavaScript.
No need to download anything which, i think, most of the users would prefer.
Next point for discussion: portable versions of wget (~450 KB) /sed (~ 77KB)
These sizes are much better, although i doubt i ever would use them for my own:
These programs could easily be programmed with JScript/C#;
i also have access to C++ at work, but i think that is an exception.
But i have no doubt that it might be acceptable for many end users,
as this serves fast (wanted) results, especially if they cannot solve that with pure batch.
Finally my opinion about that all:
On a batch forum, a solutions may not bound on any specific language:
i have no problem in using perl, c++ assembler, or even whitespace,
or even more strange programming languages.
But every programmer should follow this rules (among others) of programming (in computer science terms): Minimal costs - maximum benefits.
So if a solution with pure batch is possible, pure batch should be preferred;
Pure batch == all that is listed here:
Code: Select all
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490890.aspx
If no pure batch solution seems to be/is possible then just use the next known solution with minimal costs:
1) A small windows built in (even sytsem dependent) executable (explorer.exe, iexplore.exe, ...)
2) A script that can be executed using windows without further external tools (VBScript/JScript).
3) Optional windows updates, that allows to build more powerfull tools (.NET with Powershell, C#, ...) (at least optional using WinXP)
4) External tools, again with minimal costs: a tradeoff between file size, and usability.
So i would prefer using Perl with downloading 100 MB unpacked to 315 MB, if the only alternative were
something with lets say 20 MB (unpacked size) but much to do to get it run.
If some inbetween steps are unknown to a poster then he may skip it.
Another reason for that order (1) to 4)): If you ask your admin to do install software, he surely prefers the lower numbered.
Your boss might follow an economic rule: Minimal costs - maximum benefits.
But i assume your boss has dollars in his eyes, when he thinks about that.
So he lets the admins install something like Perl per default, so you produce solutions in less time.
But in such a case i see it similar as AiroNG:
AiroNG wrote:But if i wanted to, i'd go and visit a forum which is dedicated to those programming languages
Next topic: (Edited: Corrected the author of the next quote to berserker.)
berserker wrote:"Guessing" what the TS can or cannot use.
If the user of this forum doesn't say anything, then the only useful assumption is: He has nothing else but built in functionality.
If a user want to allow for example a C++ solution, he should say: "I have access on a C++ compiler, too."
If he has access and doesn't inform us, it is not our task to figure that out.
If we ask if he has (installed) this or that product/tool the answer even from software developers that have 5 tools installed will be: No.
In addition there might be juridical problems, the next is an example that should be noticed at least in Germany.
If something went totally wrong and causes damage to a company (server unavailable, hardware damaged)
as a result of an error (bug) in (for example) the interpreter.
Such a damage easily can reach thousands of euros/dollars/... .
When using open source software the risk is at the side of the user who uses this software if it wasn't installed by an admin.
When using proprietary software, the producer of this software (in case of VBScript interpreter: Microsoft) is liable.
So this user should avoid downloading such software, and i don't want to bring someone into such a situation,
although i know this is a only minimal risk: If something happens it is not of much use for such a person.
@berserker: I hope this anwers some of your questions, too: what is pure/native batch, why not first using Perl, and others.
I hope i haven't offended anyone.
Regards,
penpen
Edit: Corrected the authors name within a quote; sorry to AiroNG and berserker for that.