From: k_meinhard@gmx.de   
      
   Am 04.11.2021 um 14:54 schrieb Kenny McCormack:   
   > And, besides, if you want to take a more "glass is half full"   
   > approach, you could note how much better the CMD.EXE language is than   
   > the COMMAND.COM language that preceded it was.   
      
   Not very much, imho.   
      
   > i.e., the usual collection of Unix tools - that are so much better   
   > than their DOS counterparts, as we've seen in this thread).   
      
   Agreed.   
      
   > Finally, yes, back in the day, I was a big fan of the 4DOS stuff.  I   
   >  think I actually used 4OS2 more than any of the others - back when   
   > OS2 was "a thing".  Later, I was a paid up user of TCC (on Windows)   
   > for quite a while, until they started morphing TCC from being a (GUI   
   >  frontend to a) simple command line into being a full-blown GUI IDE.   
      
   They still sell TCC seperately from Take Command, which is still a GUI   
   Explorer replacement and TCC wrapper. And TCC/LE is still free.   
   > I *have* used the freeware TCC/LE (i.e., 4NT) some, but again, I   
   > don't do this stuff enough to justify the added complexity of using   
   > it.   
      
   If you don't have to use your batch code on machines where there is no   
   TCC installed (and you're not allowed to install it or use ab USB   
   stick), I can understand that.   
      
   Otherwise the added functionality and, for me most of all,  the ability   
   to write structured code (iff-elseiff-endiff, do-enddo, case etc) that   
   is easily readable outweighs by far the added complexity of using TCC.   
   _and_ you can still run CMD batches in it, (with a good debugger in   
   TCMD, by the way).   
      
   Nearly every problem I've seen discussed here can be solved easily by   
   using TCC.   
      
      
   --   
   Mit freundlichen Grüßen,   
      
      * Klaus Meinhard *   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)