Guillermo Polito wrote > I try not to depend on projects using OSProcess in that case.
That is not exactly a robust solution! What is the only project providing the functionality you need depends on OSP?! Guillermo Polito wrote > I understand that the incompatibilities bother, but putting all the fault > in OSSubprocess and not in OSProcess seems not fair :) Ha ha, well OSProcess was born in 2005, and then OSSP appeared reusing some of its functionality just recently, so I'd say it's fair indeed! Guillermo Polito wrote > Maybe both should be modified to be compatible? Maybe. I don't really understand the source of the incompatibility well enough. Guillermo Polito wrote > I found OSProcess API particularly bad. It's never clear to me whether to > use OSProcess, PipeableSomething or CommandWhatever (I don't even remember > the names of the things that **do work** and I have to look them every > time). The things you're describing are not accidental complexity, but the fact that OSP (and its companion CommandShell) actually have a far wider feature set than just simple commands. CommandShell makes many shell-like things possible in-image, but one doesn't have to use or even know anything about all that to do simple things. That said, every time I did into CS and see all the things that are possible I am amazed. Guillermo Polito wrote > Most people only want to do > output := OSProcess executeCommand: 'ls'. > Blocking. Recovering stdout. And that's all. (PipeableOSProcess command: 'ls') output That doesn't seem horribly complex to do in OSP ;) Guillermo Polito wrote > Well from a technical point of view, if you want to choose from one or > another today I'd say… Ah, interesting and informative. Thank you. ----- Cheers, Sean -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
