Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 08:34:33PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: >>> "Don't parse complex output. If you need a specific value, provide >>> an option to deliver the specific value" >>> >> And therein lies my sort of backhanded comment about XML. I don't >> understand all the effort being put into making output from these tools >> "parseable" from whatever scripting language du jour. It seems to me >> that there are other possibly superior solutions: > > Shells are *NOT* a "scripting language du jour." > > The shells have been around for a long time. > > Shells are not as cool as Perl5, Python, Ruby, whatever. True. All of > those have cool libraries with bindings for lots of C APIs. Fine, but > the shells won't go away. > > Shell scripting might be something we want to discourage, but until we > decide to do that I don't think we should blow off cases like this one.
and interactive use of shell is probably going to stick around for a while, and I don't know about all of you, but I write a whole lot of interactive shell pipelines in a day.
