3 Dec
2020
3 Dec
'20
8:31 p.m.
There's a back story. The paper appears in the proceedings of a
conference held in London in 1973, a few months after the advent of
pipes. While preparing the presentation, Ken was inspired to invent
and install the pipe operator. His talk wouldn't have been nearly as
compelling had it been expressed in the original pipeline syntax (for
which I take the blame).
References to eqn (v5), bc (v6), and ratfor (v7) obviously postdate
the London conference. Ken must have edited--or re-created--the
transcript for the proceedings sometime after v6 (May, 1975).
Bibliographic citations are missing. Can they be resurrected?
Reference 137, about Unix itself, probably refers to a
presentation by Ken and Dennis at SOSP in January1973. Alas, only an
abstract of the talk appears in the conference proceedings. But the
abstract does contain the potent and often-repeated sentence, "It
offers a number of features seldom found even in larger operating
systems, including ... inter-process IO ..." The talk--in Yorktown
Heights--was memorable, and so was a ride to the same place in Ken's
'vette. (I can't recall whether the two happened on the same
occasion.)
Given that the talk at SOSP preceded the talk in London, and that the
Unix manual was widely distributed by (1976) when the revised London
talk was printed, the claim that "The Unix command language" was the
first publication of Unix seems hyperbolic. In no way, though, does
this detract from the inherent interest of the paper.
Doug
3 Dec
3 Dec
8:37 p.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
Den tors 3 dec. 2020 kl 21:32 skrev M Douglas McIlroy <
m.douglas.mcilroy(a)dartmouth.edu>gt;:
There's a back story. The paper appears in the
proceedings of a
conference held in London in 1973, a few months after the advent of
pipes. While preparing the presentation, Ken was inspired to invent
and install the pipe operator. His talk wouldn't have been nearly as
compelling had it been expressed in the original pipeline syntax (for
which I take the blame).
Now I'm curious. Is there anywhere I can read about the original pipeline
syntax? I tried searching a bit, but the only mention that was even vaguely
informative only stated that > was involved.
Thanks!
Niklas
8:43 p.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:37:17PM +0100, Niklas Karlsson wrote:
Den tors 3 dec. 2020 kl 21:32 skrev M Douglas McIlroy
<
m.douglas.mcilroy(a)dartmouth.edu>gt;:
Wasn't there a version that was
cat whatever ^ wc -l
?
There's a back story. The paper appears in
the proceedings of a
conference held in London in 1973, a few months after the advent of
pipes. While preparing the presentation, Ken was inspired to invent
and install the pipe operator. His talk wouldn't have been nearly as
compelling had it been expressed in the original pipeline syntax (for
which I take the blame).
Now I'm curious. Is there anywhere I can read about the original pipeline
syntax? I tried searching a bit, but the only mention that was even vaguely
informative only stated that > was involved. 
8:56 p.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
Hi Larry,
Wasn't there a version that was
cat whatever ^ wc -l
It existed for quite a while in Bourne's shell even when | came along
and was useful when the keyboard didn't have a | keycap or, more likely,
when it was a modern machine with the capability of mapping keys which
had a poor mapping with no | available.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
9:01 p.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
On Thu 3 Dec 2020, 20:43 Larry McVoy, <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:37:17PM +0100, Niklas
Karlsson wrote:
Yes, that's it. And you'll still find[1] that /bin/sh on (at least?)
Solaris honors that syntax. That's one reason why the git test suite fails
on Solaris without being pushed to use a modern shell implementation.
Thanks
-Ben
[1] At least up to Solaris 10. I've not used newer.
Den tors 3 dec. 2020 kl 21:32 skrev M Douglas
McIlroy <
m.douglas.mcilroy(a)dartmouth.edu>gt;:
vaguely
There's a back story. The paper appears in
the proceedings of a
conference held in London in 1973, a few months after the advent of
pipes. While preparing the presentation, Ken was inspired to invent
and install the pipe operator. His talk wouldn't have been nearly as
compelling had it been expressed in the original pipeline syntax (for
which I take the blame).
Now I'm curious. Is there anywhere I can read about the original pipeline
syntax? I tried searching a bit, but the only mention that was even informative only stated that > was involved.
Wasn't there a version that was
cat whatever ^ wc -l
?
9:12 p.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
Yup early shell's equated ^ and |
The problem was while the Model - 33, post 1965 could print a vertical
bar, as note 2 of page three of teletypes document: "33 Keyboard" General
Description and Principles of Operations" ISS 4, Section 574-121-100TC
(Issue 4, June 1974), the keyboard could not generate it.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:43 PM Larry McVoy <lm(a)mcvoy.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 09:37:17PM +0100, Niklas
Karlsson wrote:
Den tors 3 dec. 2020 kl 21:32 skrev M Douglas
McIlroy <
m.douglas.mcilroy(a)dartmouth.edu>gt;:
vaguely
There's a back story. The paper appears in
the proceedings of a
conference held in London in 1973, a few months after the advent of
pipes. While preparing the presentation, Ken was inspired to invent
and install the pipe operator. His talk wouldn't have been nearly as
compelling had it been expressed in the original pipeline syntax (for
which I take the blame).
Now I'm curious. Is there anywhere I can read about the original pipeline
syntax? I tried searching a bit, but the only mention that was even informative only stated that > was involved.
Wasn't there a version that was
cat whatever ^ wc -l
?
4 Dec
4 Dec
12:29 a.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, Larry McVoy wrote:
Wasn't there a version that was
cat whatever ^ wc -l
Sort of pipe-related, but one thing that really gets my goat is the
inefficient redundancy in "cat file | process" when "process <
file" will
suffice (and I'll bet that I'm not alone).
And yes, "^" preceded "|" for reasons discussed later in this thread.
-- Dave
12:43 a.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
I've long been fascinated by the prevalence of
cat file | process
and think of it as a sort of triumph of the model. Pipes are more natural
than redirection as a human interface.
-rob
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:30 AM Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, Larry McVoy wrote:
Wasn't there a version that was
cat whatever ^ wc -l
Sort of pipe-related, but one thing that really gets my goat is the
inefficient redundancy in "cat file | process" when "process <
file" will
suffice (and I'll bet that I'm not alone).
And yes, "^" preceded "|" for reasons discussed later in this
thread.
-- Dave
12:48 a.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
I should have done
cat file file2 file3 ^ wc -l
since the redirect works with only one file.
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 11:43:52AM +1100, Rob Pike wrote:
I've long been fascinated by the prevalence of
cat file | process
and think of it as a sort of triumph of the model. Pipes are more natural
than redirection as a human interface.
-rob
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:30 AM Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> > Wasn't there a version that was
> >
> > cat whatever ^ wc -l
>
> Sort of pipe-related, but one thing that really gets my goat is the
> inefficient redundancy in "cat file | process" when "process <
file" will
> suffice (and I'll bet that I'm not alone).
>
> And yes, "^" preceded "|" for reasons discussed later in this
thread.
>
> -- Dave
>
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com http://www.mcvoy.com/lm
1:25 a.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:44 PM Rob Pike <robpike(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I've long been fascinated by the prevalence of
cat file | process
and think of it as a sort of triumph of the model. Pipes are more natural
than redirection as a human interface.
This has always struck me as particularly elegant in scripts. Consider:
cat "$@" | whatever
(Or you may prefer `cat $* | whatever`)
Now one's script can take any number of file arguments or stdin, even if
the filter does not.
- Dan C.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:30 AM Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, Larry McVoy wrote:
Wasn't there a version that was
cat whatever ^ wc -l
Sort of pipe-related, but one thing that really gets my goat is the
inefficient redundancy in "cat file | process" when "process <
file" will
suffice (and I'll bet that I'm not alone).
And yes, "^" preceded "|" for reasons discussed later in this
thread.
-- Dave
9:27 a.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This has always struck me as particularly elegant in
scripts. Consider:
cat "$@" | whatever
(Or you may prefer `cat $* | whatever`)
Now one's script can take any number of file arguments or stdin, even if
the filter does not.
I think Dan has hit the heart of the matter. People are used to using
cat for multiple files to start pumping data down a pipeline, so they
continue to do so even when there's only one file.
Arnold
11:33 a.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
On 12/4/20, arnold(a)skeeve.com <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote:
Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The classic example is:
$ cat file | grep foo
instead of the simpler:
$ grep foo file
It appears cat(1) and pipe(7) are deeply ingrained in people's brains.
--Andy
This has always struck me as particularly elegant
in scripts. Consider:
cat "$@" | whatever
(Or you may prefer `cat $* | whatever`)
Now one's script can take any number of file arguments or stdin, even if
the filter does not.
I think Dan has hit the heart of the matter. People are used to using
cat for multiple files to start pumping data down a pipeline, so they
continue to do so even when there's only one file.
1:14 p.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
I find cat file | grep foo simpler because it reads Left to Right.
Tyler
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:34 PM Andy Kosela <akosela(a)andykosela.com> wrote:
On 12/4/20, arnold(a)skeeve.com
<arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote:
Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The classic example is:
$ cat file | grep foo
instead of the simpler:
$ grep foo file
It appears cat(1) and pipe(7) are deeply ingrained in people's brains.
--Andy
This has always struck me as particularly elegant
in scripts. Consider:
cat "$@" | whatever
(Or you may prefer `cat $* | whatever`)
Now one's script can take any number of file arguments or stdin, even if
the filter does not.
I think Dan has hit the heart of the matter. People are used to using
cat for multiple files to start pumping data down a pipeline, so they
continue to do so even when there's only one file.
1:17 p.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
< file grep foo works.
Niklas
Den fre 4 dec. 2020 kl 14:16 skrev Tyler Adams <coppero1237(a)gmail.com>om>:
I find cat file | grep foo simpler because it reads
Left to Right.
Tyler
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:34 PM Andy Kosela <akosela(a)andykosela.com> wrote:
On 12/4/20, arnold(a)skeeve.com
<arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote:
The classic example is:
$ cat file | grep foo
instead of the simpler:
$ grep foo file
It appears cat(1) and pipe(7) are deeply ingrained in people's brains.
--Andy
Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> This has always struck me as particularly elegant in scripts. Consider:
>
> cat "$@" | whatever
>
> (Or you may prefer `cat $* | whatever`)
>
> Now one's script can take any number of file arguments or stdin, even
if
the
filter does not.
I think Dan has hit the heart of the matter. People are used to using
cat for multiple files to start pumping data down a pipeline, so they
continue to do so even when there's only one file.
1:22 p.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
Not always
$ cat a | while read line; do echo $line; done
#!/usr/bin/env bash
PUPPETEER_PRODUCT=firefox npm install -g md-to-pdf
$ < a while read line; do echo $line; done
-bash: syntax error near unexpected token `do'
Tyler
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:17 PM Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
< file grep foo works.
Niklas
Den fre 4 dec. 2020 kl 14:16 skrev Tyler Adams <coppero1237(a)gmail.com>om>:
> I find cat file | grep foo simpler because it reads Left to Right.
>
> Tyler
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:34 PM Andy Kosela <akosela(a)andykosela.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/4/20, arnold(a)skeeve.com <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote:
>> > Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This has always struck me as particularly elegant in scripts.
>> Consider:
>> >>
>> >> cat "$@" | whatever
>> >>
>> >> (Or you may prefer `cat $* | whatever`)
>> >>
>> >> Now one's script can take any number of file arguments or stdin,
even
>> if
>> >> the filter does not.
>> >
>> > I think Dan has hit the heart of the matter. People are used to using
>> > cat for multiple files to start pumping data down a pipeline, so they
>> > continue to do so even when there's only one file.
>> >
>>
>> The classic example is:
>>
>> $ cat file | grep foo
>>
>> instead of the simpler:
>>
>> $ grep foo file
>>
>> It appears cat(1) and pipe(7) are deeply ingrained in people's brains.
>>
>> --Andy
>>
>
1:25 p.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
Fair enough, and I guess it gets messy trying to remember all of the odd
exceptions.
Niklas
Den fre 4 dec. 2020 kl 14:23 skrev Tyler Adams <coppero1237(a)gmail.com>om>:
Not always
$ cat a | while read line; do echo $line; done
#!/usr/bin/env bash
PUPPETEER_PRODUCT=firefox npm install -g md-to-pdf
$ < a while read line; do echo $line; done
-bash: syntax error near unexpected token `do'
Tyler
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 3:17 PM Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> < file grep foo works.
>
> Niklas
>
> Den fre 4 dec. 2020 kl 14:16 skrev Tyler Adams <coppero1237(a)gmail.com>om>:
>
>> I find cat file | grep foo simpler because it reads Left to Right.
>>
>> Tyler
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 1:34 PM Andy Kosela <akosela(a)andykosela.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/4/20, arnold(a)skeeve.com <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote:
>>> > Dan Cross <crossd(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> This has always struck me as particularly elegant in scripts.
>>> Consider:
>>> >>
>>> >> cat "$@" | whatever
>>> >>
>>> >> (Or you may prefer `cat $* | whatever`)
>>> >>
>>> >> Now one's script can take any number of file arguments or
stdin,
>>> even if
>>> >> the filter does not.
>>> >
>>> > I think Dan has hit the heart of the matter. People are used to using
>>> > cat for multiple files to start pumping data down a pipeline, so they
>>> > continue to do so even when there's only one file.
>>> >
>>>
>>> The classic example is:
>>>
>>> $ cat file | grep foo
>>>
>>> instead of the simpler:
>>>
>>> $ grep foo file
>>>
>>> It appears cat(1) and pipe(7) are deeply ingrained in people's brains.
>>>
>>> --Andy
>>>
>>
12:45 a.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
I also get this, but there is a part of this which is about the
history of your command stream as a history of thinking.
cat file
<blurs past>
(sigh)
cat file | more
not more file. because you are heading to
cat file | cut -d, -f1,2 | real-job
yes, the cat is redundant. but syntactically it is like (a b) + vs
plus(a,b) its not the functional order of the atoms for execution, its
how you "pronounce" the work you are doing inside your head..
expressed through your fingers.
The cost of the cat is really not big. the cost of re-framing your
command to cmd < thing is sometimes higher in brain cost. Brains are
expensive.
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 10:30 AM Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, Larry McVoy wrote:
Wasn't there a version that was
cat whatever ^ wc -l
Sort of pipe-related, but one thing that really gets my goat is the
inefficient redundancy in "cat file | process" when "process <
file" will
suffice (and I'll bet that I'm not alone).
And yes, "^" preceded "|" for reasons discussed later in this
thread.
-- Dave 
1:10 a.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
On Dec 3, 2020, at 4:29 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, Larry McVoy wrote:
Checking command history in zsh:
$ h 1-|wc -l; h 1-|grep '<' | wc -l; h 1-|grep '>' | wc -l; h
1-|grep '|'|wc -l
10009
125
225
878
So it appears I used < ~1%, > ~2% and | ~9% of the command lines!
I bet others will something similar.
Wasn't there a version that was
cat whatever ^ wc -l
Sort of pipe-related, but one thing that really gets my goat is the inefficient
redundancy in "cat file | process" when "process < file" will
suffice (and I'll bet that I'm not alone).
1:17 a.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
ggm@ggm-802382 ~ % h 1-|wc -l; h 1-|grep '<' | wc -l; h 1-|grep
'>' |
wc -l; h 1-|grep '|'|wc -l
1005
34
14
91
ggm@ggm-802382 ~ %
On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 11:11 AM Bakul Shah <bakul(a)iitbombay.org> wrote:
On Dec 3, 2020, at 4:29 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave(a)horsfall.org> wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2020, Larry McVoy wrote:
Checking command history in zsh:
$ h 1-|wc -l; h 1-|grep '<' | wc -l; h 1-|grep '>' | wc -l; h
1-|grep '|'|wc -l
10009
125
225
878
So it appears I used < ~1%, > ~2% and | ~9% of the command lines!
I bet others will something similar. Wasn't there a version that was
cat whatever ^ wc -l
Sort of pipe-related, but one thing that really gets my goat is the inefficient
redundancy in "cat file | process" when "process < file" will
suffice (and I'll bet that I'm not alone).
3 Dec
3 Dec
8:51 p.m.
New subject: The UNIX Command Language (1976)
https://archive.org/details/a_research_unix_reader pp 29-30
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 3:37 PM Niklas Karlsson <nikke.karlsson(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Den tors 3 dec. 2020 kl 21:32 skrev M Douglas McIlroy
<m.douglas.mcilroy(a)dartmouth.edu>du>:
There's a back story. The paper appears in the proceedings of a
conference held in London in 1973, a few months after the advent of
pipes. While preparing the presentation, Ken was inspired to invent
and install the pipe operator. His talk wouldn't have been nearly as
compelling had it been expressed in the original pipeline syntax (for
which I take the blame).
Now I'm curious. Is there anywhere I can read about the original pipeline syntax? I
tried searching a bit, but the only mention that was even vaguely informative only stated
that > was involved.
Thanks!
Niklas
1233
days inactive
1234
days old
19 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
Andy Kosela -
arnold＠skeeve.com -
Bakul Shah -
Ben Walton -
Clem Cole -
Dan Cross -
Dave Horsfall -
George Michaelson -
Larry McVoy -
M Douglas McIlroy -
Niklas Karlsson -
Ralph Corderoy -
Rob Pike -
Tyler Adams