Re: Booming or Fuming? Are You Alive? Or Are You Fading Away?!

From: Al Dunbar [MS-MVP] (alan-no-drub-spam_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/30/04 

Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 11:07:13 -0600

"Klaus Meinhard" <K_Meinhard@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:clvjlf$u35$03$1@news.t-online.com...
> guard,
>
> > Our Command Library is simply a very efficient way
> > to distribute this knowledge. It provides an
> > ever-increasing collection of commonly needed resources
> > using a standard syntax that "feels" like a batch file.

The syntax required to use their product, while it may technically consist
purely of statements processed completely by the native batch command
processor, I can state that, for me at least, it does not "feel" at all like
a batch file.

> ... if you feel you _must_ stay within the bounds of a rather limited
> command processor, only because it comes free with the OS.

IMHO, I believe that they don't want anyone else to stay with the free
command processor - they want us to buy their third party product to layer
on top of it. The fact that it is written with pure batch seems more a
statement about the mentality behind their work than anything to do with
simplicity or elegance.

> > And it does this in a SINGLE FILE while staying within
> > the bounds of using ONLY native commands. In addition,
> > we use ONLY the Common Command Set which exists across
> > NT/2K/XP/K3.

This seems a nice concept for an experiment, but one that has gone way off
the rails.

> ... so we are not on topic here :-)

A waste of breath. They are not looking to be seen as good netizens here,
just looking at increasing the hitcounts on their website, regardless of the
numbers they annoy in the process.

> > This actually eliminates the need to write convoluted
> > code that is full of special cases and exceptions just
> > to get a script to work on multiple platforms. It
> > provides CONSISTENCY that is normally found only in
> > more advanced programming/scripting languages.

I tried it and immediately ran into a problem with it. I have also seen
others post comments about its problems. Hey, guard, it is not PERFECT, OK?
You aim for CONSISTENCY, which is laudable, but you do not reach it ALL of
the time, and you force your users into writing their own code in a style
that some of us consider painfully awkward, and dissimilar to simple batch
code.

> These exact words could be an advert for 4NT, the (commercial) power
> command processor for the NT/XT range of OSs.

Yes, that is another competitive third party tool. I choose neither for my
own particular reasons. But if forced to choose one or the other there is no
doubt in my mind that I would go for the product from the company with a
track record, who seems to prefer to let the quality of their offering speak
for itself or through customer testimonials, eschewing the breast-bleating
and attitude of mental superiority that we sometimes see here from guard!
;-)

<snip>

> > The limited scope of Cmd.exe and its related utilities
> > is the source of much fuming. But that is what is
> > installed on millions of systems around the world.
>
> Obviously, we agree :-)

I don't agree. Certainly the newsgroups indicate that it takes newbies a
while to get up to speed with it. But I challenge the following notions:

A) that millions around the world are fuming as a result.

Cite your references and data as to the numbers. Also, what is actually
meant by the term "fuming"? It is suggestive to me of an inability to face
and effectively deal with certain realities of life, exascerbated by an
unfounded belief that an external solution will fix it.Your prozac (TM) for
the masses is just as effective when either is taken without addressing the
underlying problems.

B) that, even for those who have experienced some sort of problems coding in
batch, a product such as the systemguard's actually releases them from these
annoyances without adding new ones.

Let's face it, cmd and batch have their limitations. That is why we have all
developed our own coding style to insulate us from any iregularities. I
choose to use my own batch subroutines, which I code and debug myself, while
you are asking that I let you do the hard bits for me, at the expense of
having to learn (and use!) a new set of command features whose syntax I find
overly cumbersome. Sorry, but no sale.

As well, it is perhaps not to be expected that everyone and her dog will
program in batch. Many of those that have difficulty will, I expect, have
difficulty coding to systemguard. Conversely, those with the mental ability
to use your product effectively, most probably also have the ability to deal
effectively with batch itself.

> > And these limitations are one of the primary reasons
> > to use a Command Library that extends and expands
> > this "limited scope" to a whole new world!

Crap! if you'll pardon the word. Those limitations result also in other
choices, many of which are the right choice, and righter than yours in the
context.

> If, for any reason, you are unable to use 4NT or the free 4DOS command
> interpreter, your tools lib may come in handy.

I develop scripting applications that are totally infeasible in batch, and I
cannot use 4NT or 4DOS in my environment for a variety of reasons, the
3rd-party rule being only one. Even if the 3rd-party rule would allow me to
use systemguard I would not. In addition to personal dis-preference for the
product, it is the underlying inapplicability of the batch environment
itself to the application domain.

So when an adhoc batch script starts to experience scope creep, I switch to
an alternative platform more suitable to the problem domain. In most cases
this turns out to be WSH. And, yes, I know, even that platform has inherent
problems. I will end by saying that no platform is problem free, and, even
if some were, systemguard would not be on the list.

/Al

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Multi-zip files -- Windows server
    ... native DOS versions). ... TO BATCH OR NOT TO BATCH ... and using a batch file to try and solve the problem... ... The IBM PC operating system command line is a most ...
    (comp.sys.cbm)
  • Re: Booming or Fuming? Are You Alive? Or Are You Fading Away?!
    ... purely of statements processed completely by the native batch command ... > command processor, only because it comes free with the OS. ... Hey, guard, it is not PERFECT, OK? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain)
  • Re: Batch file (CMD) output into HTA
    ... One could argue that "real dos" and the NT command prompt have ... be a group for console operations, ... crosspost to batch, vbscript, wsh, powershell, and possibly other groups. ... are also using VBS and just don't know where else ...
    (microsoft.public.scripting.vbscript)
  • CreateProcess not working as doc specifies.
    ... I am having some difficulty using CreateProcess() to run a batch file and get ... you must start the command interpreter; ... the test.bat (should return exit code 1 and does when run from the command ...
    (microsoft.public.win32.programmer.kernel)
  • Re: Run Items Without Explorer
    ... I call this a batch shell. ... Startup a batch command as Shell and at the end of the batch file, ... The standard RUN key in the registry will help you. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.embedded)