dumb question [on scripting]

[Paul Allen Newell]

On 1/4/2012 4:21 PM, g wrote:
> i can understand. it takes time. just consider what it was like in 70's
> when i started learning micro cpu's and unix, as well as others, when
> there was no internet as it is today.

I was there in ancient times and I'd rather have the current flood of 
information that requires much winnowing and sifting to find what is 
needed than the days of minimal info ... and the only way you stood a 
chance of getting an answer was to be in the same room as the person who 
knew it (of course, remote access to a computer meant terminals in a 
room next to the freezing computer room as opposed to in it).

> as for man|info, 'man' was written when terse was in. 'info' is just a
> little less terse. ;)
>
> note links in my sig, from tldp, a search for "scripts" at tldp provided;
>
> http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017644269519104757279%3Agm62gtzaoky&q=scripts&sa=go#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=scripts&gsc.page=1
>
> granted, that link leads to a lot of reading, but i believe 1st, 4th
> and 5th hits will be of great help.

A lot of reading is a mild understatement (smile), but I do thank you 
for the link.

> i envy your learning c++. i started out with machine code and assembler.
> having learned them, i could not see a lot of advantage of c when it
> can out so i learned it to work up screen displays quickly, which i
> would dissemble and rewrite.
>
> i wish i had stayed with c and gone further with c++. i can read and
> debug them, but creating with them is a downfall for me.
>
>

I've done my fair share of assembler and have to admit that one of the 
reasons I liked c was I was able to get away with the kind of murder you 
could only do in assembler. C++ was just the natural next thing.

But somehow I never needed scripting until I got old enough that the 
brain resisted yet another new thing.

Paul