After ALL this time...DOS batch file is back!

[MoonRise]

After all these years and now I have a new process to deal with @ work. Guess what? To make it work properly with our "methods" I'm having to write a Batch Script to handle file movements. WOW! Never thought I would have to dig that back out of my head. Command Line. So powerful! If I was smart I guess I could try with CYGWIN but I guess that adds an unnecessary layer there.

[Ole Juul]

Re: After ALL this time...DOS batch file is back!

Sounds interesting. One of my computers runs entirely on batch files. That's how we used to do it with DOS and there wasn't really an "operating system" until the user made their own. Yes indeed very powerful, that's why I'm still using DOS.

[GreyGeek]

Re: After ALL this time...DOS batch file is back!

Not uncommon at all.

Most of the major and critical work was done by batch files where I worked. These tasks included backing up, creating indexes on graphic files, importing flat files from old mainframes running COBOL, parsing those files and creating flat files that could be imported into Oracle, etc...

My son wrote a lot of them for his Oracle maintenance, but a few years ago switched most, but not all of them, to Java and Python.

[oshunluvr]

Re: After ALL this time...DOS batch file is back!

Still using DOS? Wow! Does that computer have a keyboard chiseled out of stone?

Kidding!

Anyway - my work system is loaded with batch files. I wrote a new one just the other day to extract data from a log file without having to dig through extraneous stuff or even worse - import it into some over-coded GUI based POS word processor!

[Ole Juul]

Re: After ALL this time...DOS batch file is back!

GreyGeek: My son wrote a lot of them for his Oracle maintenance, but a few years ago switched most, but not all of them, to Java and Python.

I think these are actually modern replacements - PHP as well. The problem is that these very powerful languages are too much for amateurs. The batch file system was intended to be very functional for amateurs and regular users. That's one reason I use it: it's simple and doesn't burn a lot of brain cells.

oshunluvr: Still using DOS? Wow! Does that computer have a keyboard chiseled out of stone? Grin Grin Grin

Almost! I'm one of those people who swear by the model M buckling spring, aka clickety, keyboard. They're much valued and believe it or not, still sold. Against someone armed with a stone slab, I'd give the model M a slight advantage.

[MoonRise]

Re: After ALL this time...DOS batch file is back!

Batch files remind me of the C64 Basic in some ways. As I've said before though I much prefer PASCAL. I'm actually excited either way. I haven't got to do any programming in a LONG time. I'll take what comes my way.

[Telengard]

Re: After ALL this time...DOS batch file is back!

Batch files remind me of the C64 Basic in some ways.

10 PRINT CHR$(29);
20 PRINT "I ADORE MY C64! ";
30 GOTO 20
40 REM :)

[MoonRise]

Re: After ALL this time...DOS batch file is back!

Batch files remind me of the C64 Basic in some ways.

10 PRINT CHR$(29);
20 PRINT "I ADORE MY C64! ";
30 GOTO 20
40 REM :)

Yea!

[GreyGeek]

Re: After ALL this time...DOS batch file is back!

My first commercial venture, incorporated as "WetWare", was to create a farm accounting package using Apple Basic. The notion that 10 unused numbers between lines was sufficient was quickly dispelled. Even 50 unused numbers wasn't enough at times. Then I found a utility that renumbered the lines in any increments want wanted. Thirty was chosen to avoid having to renumber the code. Line numbers were a royal pain...

[MoonRise]

Re: After ALL this time...DOS batch file is back!

Yea I remember on a little application I did that I had to renumber. Wasn't fun but oh well part of the programming pattern at the time. Knew no different. Once I go to college it was nice using "text editors" without numbering. Wasn't that difficult to drop line numbers.

[Telengard]

Re: After ALL this time...DOS batch file is back!

The notion that 10 unused numbers between lines was sufficient was quickly dispelled. Even 50 unused numbers wasn't enough at times.

Best practice in line numbered BASICs is to use the increment which best suits the anticipated size of your project. For small projects an increment of 10 (or sometimes even 5) can be sufficient. For medium or large sized projects one should go with 100 or so.

I like to start large projects at 1000 and then increment by 10 or 100 for each line. Subroutines or conceptually separate program segments automatically start at the next increment of 1000.

In C64 BASIC you eventually run into the line number limit somewhere in the 65xxx range ( I don't think it was 65535, but maybe ). If your program is really so large then you should consider breaking conceptually separate program segments into separate programs which can be loaded on the fly. This requires some planning to decide how best to pass data from PROGRAM A to PROGRAM B.