Tom, what's the joke with the references to Linux? Not that I would mind. I've run Linux since 1994. Took home an early Slackware system on 64 floppy disks, had to write an X11 driver for my weird-ass 512K Realtek SVGA card and then ruined my eyes looking at 1024x768 pixels interlaced, but why would FreeDOS require an interpreter from Linux? If anything, OS/2 was the better DOS. Yout might have triggered me ito proting Rexx...
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 at 00:26, tom ehlert via Freedos-devel <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > > > I'd agree with Tom here. Reinventing the wheel makes little sense. > > After all, one of the points of FreeDOS is being a free replacement > > of, well DOS, so you shouldn't really need a replacement for something > > that has worked fairly well since the Romans left. > > > In fact, I'm not even sure we should go too far in extending batch > > capabilities. After all you'd just create incompatibilities to the > > digital ancestors, > NO. Adding features like the mentioned ones does NOT create incompatibilities. > > And I'm pretty certain that CMD.EXE with all it's extensions will execute > 30 year old batches absolute flawless. MS did a good job in that respect. > > > and if you want a verstile scripting language, it > > might make more sense to 'outsource' it to a separate interpreter, > > like OS/2 did with Rexx. > Yes. With the minor drawback that FreeDOS will never see such an interpreter, > unless there is such a thing for linux available, waiting to be ported to DOS. > > Tom > > > > On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 at 18:42, tom ehlert via Freedos-devel > > <freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > * Create a new alternative shell, similar to COMMAND.COM but with > >> > expanded BAT programming. > >> creating a *new* command.com is a really idiotic idea. the existing > >> freecom.com is stable, tested, > >> and mostly bugfree. Why would someone even get the idea to create a *new* > >> one (including investing > >> the work) ? > >> > >> however, teaching freecom.com new tricks would be welcome, even if pretty > >> much nobody > >> would ever know about and use them. > >> > >> > So like Windows's CMD.EXE with FOR /L and FOR /D and FOR /F etc? > >> exactly. additionally, CMD.EXE has useful features like > >> set /A count=%count% + 1 # arithmetics > >> set W # list environment variables starting > >> with W > >> echo %date% # 14.12.2024 > >> echo %date:~0,2%'th day of month %date:~3,2% in year %date:~6,4% # > >> 14'th day of month 12 in year 2024 > >> and probably many more. > >> > >> may I suggest in addition > >> TYPE /B file1 >> file2 # append file1 to file2 *in BINARY mode, > >> ignoring ^Z and CR/LF > >> > >> > >> some (like the extended FOR options) may be more complicated, some fairly > >> easy. > >> > >> > >> of course, fixing one of the latest discovered freecom bugs (?) might also > >> be nice; > >> essentially fixing not well defined behaviour, similar to > >> > >> COPY File1+File2+File1 File1 > >> > >> i.e. reusing the output file for input after modifying it. > >> would have to start with investigation on how other implementations > >> (MSDOS,WINNT) handle this. > >> > >> Tom > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
