Though, as far as hacking goes, I'd almost prefer a BASIC prompt [or `irb`, `idle`, or any other number of modern REPLs] as opposed to a shell prompt.
I can hack away at bash scripts... but bash just doesn't seem as warm and inviting as BASIC was.
I think part of that is: shells are _primarily_ an interface to your filesystem. They offer IO redirection and the ability to run arbitrary executables.
While their scripting facilities are certainly "complete", and plenty usable, I'd disagree that they're designed for it.
When I fudge my fingers writing some Ruby, Go, Python, or Perl, the compiler or interpreter is usually pretty helpful in guiding me to my mistake. Often times it's also helpful in _suggesting_ the means to fix that mistake.
When shell scripting goes _wrong_, (as it often _will_ for a complete novice), I don't think the shell is as helpful in correcting the mistake.
Comments
I agree that the GUI is the likely culprit.
Though, as far as hacking goes, I'd almost prefer a BASIC prompt [or `irb`, `idle`, or any other number of modern REPLs] as opposed to a shell prompt.
I can hack away at bash scripts... but bash just doesn't seem as warm and inviting as BASIC was.
I think part of that is: shells are _primarily_ an interface to your filesystem. They offer IO redirection and the ability to run arbitrary executables.
While their scripting facilities are certainly "complete", and plenty usable, I'd disagree that they're designed for it.
When I fudge my fingers writing some Ruby, Go, Python, or Perl, the compiler or interpreter is usually pretty helpful in guiding me to my mistake. Often times it's also helpful in _suggesting_ the means to fix that mistake.
When shell scripting goes _wrong_, (as it often _will_ for a complete novice), I don't think the shell is as helpful in correcting the mistake.
That's my $.02 anyways.