Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site callan.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!intelca!proper!callan!geoff
From: geoff@callan.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: net.cog-eng,net.unix
Subject: Re: name=value or -n value?
Message-ID: <130@callan.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Mar-84 16:36:23 EST
Article-I.D.: callan.130
Posted: Mon Mar 26 16:36:23 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Mar-84 01:33:52 EST
References: <44@circe.UUCP>
Organization: Callan Data Systems, Westlake Village, CA
Lines: 34

Another issue when designing command-language interfaces is the ease of
typing a particular character.  For this reason, I am in love with the Unix
convention of separating arguments with blank, rather than "," or some such.
This applies to the discussion of Unix arguments because "-" is unshifted,
while "+" requires typing a shift key--much less convenient and much more
error-prone.  Many systems use "/" to introduce command switches, because it
is not only unshifted but located where it is easy to type without missing
the key.  Unfortunately, Unix pre-empted this with the pathname syntax (this
isn't a complaint, I like it better than the other characters they could
have chosen).

The following unshifted characters are available on non-braindamaged keyboards
(VT100/Selectric layout):  -=`'[];,.\/

Most of these are totally unacceptable (can you see typing "ls ,l" for a long
listing?).  The only acceptable ones seem to me to be -=.\/  "-" and "=" both
require a long reach;  "\" and "/" are already used.  "." isn't TOO bad, but
it sure isn't great.  "-" has a mnemonic problem that has already been pointed
out, and "=" as in the dd syntax seems to turn people off.  I vote that we
stay with "-":  it has serious problems, but as has been pointed out, it saves
us from the horrible fate of rewriting all of our shell scripts.

By the way, I am getting tired of seeing people posting notes to the effect of
"if you don't like Unix syntax, go use JCL for a while".  We are all aware of
the deficiencies of JCL;  most of us are also experienced enough to realize
that UNIX and JCL are not the only command interpreters available.  It is
clear that UNIX has problems;  sticking your head in the sand won't cure them.
If you want to take an attitude of "it's perfect the way it is because God
(Dennis Ritchie, apparently) did it that way", I suggest that YOU go to work
for IBM and write JCL--IBM seems to like that kind of attitude.

	Geoff Kuenning
	Callan Data Systems
	...!ihnp4!sdcrdcf!trwrb!wlbr!callan!geoff