[GRASS-dev] Re: 'g.gui wxpython' won't work in wingrass as wxgui is a shell script

Ivan Shmakov ivan at theory.asu.ru
Mon Mar 17 11:25:50 EDT 2008

>>>>> Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com> writes:

 >>> but for more complex programming python will be better. It's just a
 >>> matter of choosing a compromise. e.g. for your g.mlist example sh
 >>> is hard to beat.

 >> But that's exactly my point -- Python is hardly an alternative for
 >> the 1.5-liners that you type into the Shell interactively.  And
 >> depriving a GRASS user of a Shell does, in my opinion, seriously
 >> limit the usefulness of GRASS.

 > We aren't depriving them of a shell. We're eliminating the
 > requirement to install bash even for users who would normally use
 > either the GUI or cmd.exe.

	However, in the other post you're saying that you ``wouldn't
	suggest using cmd.exe for scripts.''  And that's the whole
	point: cmd.exe is a much worser ``programming language'' than
	even POSIX Shell is.

 > Oh, and we're also eliminating a source of problems for GRASS
 > developers. On Windows, the problems with shell scripts begin with
 > the need to install bash, but they certainly don't end there.

	Unfortunately, I have to agree on that.

	However, won't the communication issues arise due to the fact
	that while GRASS/Unix users would use Shell (as it's quite a
	natural choice), while their GRASS/W32 counterparts would be
	advised to choose, e. g., Python?

	In my opinion, a portable implementation of a Shell (and the
	related tools) would be of a much help to the both sides of the
	problem.  (And fixing MSYS issues may be an option.)  Though
	it's completely out of the scope of the GRASS project.

	Finally, I could only hope of that there'd be more GNU
	installations in the future.  (Would there be a little more help
	for me here, I'd certainly prefer running GRASS under GNU/Linux
	in the classroom.)

 >> Thus, while MSYS' or Cygwin's Shell (and the ``usual'' tools) may be
 >> somewhat difficult to deploy on W32, it seems to me just unavoidable
 >> to have them installed in order to do anything useful with GRASS.

 > Not really. Simple tasks can be done with just the GUI.

	One certainly won't go far only doing simple tasks.

 > More complex tasks really deserve a proper programming language.  The
 > range inbetween, where bash is a reasonable solution, is actually
 > quite narrow.

	The only thing that I have to say in the defense of Bash is that
	the little languages always have a narrow, but not a negligible

 > Even moreso when you consider that the lower end of that range is
 > adequately covered by cmd.exe (and most Windows users will probably
 > be more familiar with that than with bash).

	I guess that most of the Windows users which aren't familiar
	with programming aren't probably familiar with cmd.exe either,
	and those who're familiar with the former most probably know a
	programming language which is much better suited for GRASS
	programming than cmd.exe.

 > IOW, anything which is too complex for cmd.exe should probably be
 > done with a real language, even if it can be done with bash.

	I don't think so.

More information about the grass-dev mailing list