Am I the only one struggling with the "Controllers" folder not being an 8.3 filename, and therefore couldn't actually exist on MSDOS?
To use "Controllers" you'd need a file system with support for Long File Names (LFN) which for most people didn't happen until Windows 95 (maybe WInNT 3 had it too, I dunno, never used NT 3.x).
If I just changed any mention of "Controllers" to "CONTRO~1" (both in the tutorial and in the code) -- it would work just fine. Maybe after 10+ years it's time for a patch. But not today.
I think the author is using "DOS" to mean "Windows Command Prompt" (cmd.exe and Win32 Console subsystem)
Incorrect terminology, but an error I've heard people make again and again and again, pretty much constantly ever since Windows XP came out. In Windows 3.x/9x/Me, the command prompt actually was MS-DOS. In NT/XP/Vista/7/8/10/11, it is not DOS any more, unless you actually run command.com under NTVDM (only possible in 32-bit Windows, support for which is gone in Windows 11)
From what I recall, Windows 95 and 98 shipped with MS-DOS 7.0, which was not released separately but was easily extracted and could run on its own. It included support for long file names.
Every time I see 'DOS' tutorials like this, I realise that I'm in a minority that uses .cmd as [Windows]DOS batch file extensions and not .bat
The reason for this (for those that don't know) is that when 32-bit Windows arrived, the DOS 32-bit shell (cmd.exe) was introduced alongside the traditional command.com and with it added a bunch of new shell commands and options. To call cmd.exe instead of command.com you would use .cmd as your batch file extension instead of .bat.
This was done to ensure ongoing 100% compatibility of legacy .bat files with command.com
Even after Microsoft killed off command.com and remapped .bat to cmd.exe I still used .cmd as the file extension and still do to this day.
Seeing people use .bat makes me realise that a lot of people never went through this transition and are probably unaware of the .cmd extension.
Odd, I lived through the same period, and don't recall a situation where .cmd vs .bat ever made a difference to the interpreter.
On DOS-based Windows (i.e. up to 3.1, and then 95/98/ME) only COMMAND.COM was available, so certainly that was always used as the interpreter.
The native Windows 32-bit cmd.exe was introduced on NT-based Windows (i.e. 3.1/3.5(1)/4/2000, then XP and all following mainstream Windows). A virtualised form of DOS was available on the NT line so in principle you could also run your batch files through the old COMMAND.COM. This is where I'm least confident, but I thought that the extension wouldn't make that choice though - it would use the 32-bit cmd.exe even if the extension was .bat, unless you explicitly started a DOS instance and ran it through that. After all, one of the design goals of cmd.exe was to be a drop-in replacement for the old DOS interpreter.
"So far I haven't run into any performance problems. Whenever I've opened up a DoD website to several users, my hard drive tends to get wiped long before I discover performance issues."
"So far I haven't run into any performance problems. Whenever I've opened up a DoD website to several users, my hard drive tends to get wiped long before I discover performance issues."
Had to laugh at this in the FAQ. My first thought was of the Tubes "White Punks on Dope." I think that is the performance you are seeking.
> In DoD we embrace the NoSQL movement and jump straight to the data-store of the future: a CSV file.
> If you can't trust public visitors from the internet, who can you trust? Executing user input as commands inside the operating system is the most direct way to get things done, and that's what matters most.
...wow do batch files still use this stuff seriously? I remember learning that trick from the PC Mag MS-DOS Bible in the early 90s...that one alone made me feel like I had learned to write executables rather than simple command lists. Funny to see this project, really cool too.
> That editor with the blue background must be the new TextMate-killer for the PC :)
It could and should be. Subjectively, according to my taste, all modern text-mode editors are either ugly or unintuitive or both. MS Edit (edit.com) was both nice-looking and intuitive but lacked modern features like extensibility, code completion, regex search, multi-cursor, UTF-8 support etc. I really wish there were modern MS Edit clones (for whatever OSes the developers would be interested in, I'm interested in many) implementing modern features I've mentioned.
I found that (even back in 2010!) “edlin” wasn’t available on my laptop. And since I was coding this on the bus (without internet) I couldn’t download/find some legacy way of running edlin.
I opted to gave an example of “copy con” and ^Z instead.
I sorta don’t get it. Is there such a thing a corny meta humor? There’s corny regular humor. Can meta humor be corny too? Is this meta corny? There’s gotta be corny people at every layer, right?
This is kinda corny. It’s still edgy to make fun of model view controller?
[+] [-] jimohalloranau|4 years ago|reply
To use "Controllers" you'd need a file system with support for Long File Names (LFN) which for most people didn't happen until Windows 95 (maybe WInNT 3 had it too, I dunno, never used NT 3.x).
So "WinDOS on Dope"?
Still pretty cool nonetheless.
[+] [-] LeonB|4 years ago|reply
If I just changed any mention of "Controllers" to "CONTRO~1" (both in the tutorial and in the code) -- it would work just fine. Maybe after 10+ years it's time for a patch. But not today.
[+] [-] pavlov|4 years ago|reply
But yes, it’s not DOS-credible if the paths aren’t like C:\DOPE\CTRL …
[+] [-] skissane|4 years ago|reply
Incorrect terminology, but an error I've heard people make again and again and again, pretty much constantly ever since Windows XP came out. In Windows 3.x/9x/Me, the command prompt actually was MS-DOS. In NT/XP/Vista/7/8/10/11, it is not DOS any more, unless you actually run command.com under NTVDM (only possible in 32-bit Windows, support for which is gone in Windows 11)
[+] [-] rascul|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Semiapies|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smnrchrds|4 years ago|reply
https://github.com/azac/cobol-on-wheelchair
[+] [-] seanhunter|4 years ago|reply
The one true web framework for serious business applications.
[+] [-] alexshendi|4 years ago|reply
The verdict: Sentenced to using PC-DOS 1.0 for 6 month' straight. No probation.
[+] [-] LeonB|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jaruzel|4 years ago|reply
The reason for this (for those that don't know) is that when 32-bit Windows arrived, the DOS 32-bit shell (cmd.exe) was introduced alongside the traditional command.com and with it added a bunch of new shell commands and options. To call cmd.exe instead of command.com you would use .cmd as your batch file extension instead of .bat.
This was done to ensure ongoing 100% compatibility of legacy .bat files with command.com
Even after Microsoft killed off command.com and remapped .bat to cmd.exe I still used .cmd as the file extension and still do to this day.
Seeing people use .bat makes me realise that a lot of people never went through this transition and are probably unaware of the .cmd extension.
[+] [-] quietbritishjim|4 years ago|reply
On DOS-based Windows (i.e. up to 3.1, and then 95/98/ME) only COMMAND.COM was available, so certainly that was always used as the interpreter.
The native Windows 32-bit cmd.exe was introduced on NT-based Windows (i.e. 3.1/3.5(1)/4/2000, then XP and all following mainstream Windows). A virtualised form of DOS was available on the NT line so in principle you could also run your batch files through the old COMMAND.COM. This is where I'm least confident, but I thought that the extension wouldn't make that choice though - it would use the 32-bit cmd.exe even if the extension was .bat, unless you explicitly started a DOS instance and ran it through that. After all, one of the design goals of cmd.exe was to be a drop-in replacement for the old DOS interpreter.
[+] [-] LeonB|4 years ago|reply
In dos on dope, .bat files are used for actions that handle http GET, and .cmd files are used for actions that handle http POST.
Btw I did live through that transition. (?)
[+] [-] porbelm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unixhero|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] porbelm|4 years ago|reply
lol :)
[+] [-] lightlyused|4 years ago|reply
Had to laugh at this in the FAQ. My first thought was of the Tubes "White Punks on Dope." I think that is the performance you are seeking.
[+] [-] pabs3|4 years ago|reply
> In DoD we embrace the NoSQL movement and jump straight to the data-store of the future: a CSV file.
> If you can't trust public visitors from the internet, who can you trust? Executing user input as commands inside the operating system is the most direct way to get things done, and that's what matters most.
[+] [-] themodelplumber|4 years ago|reply
Holy smokes, what a flashback...
> @echo off
...wow do batch files still use this stuff seriously? I remember learning that trick from the PC Mag MS-DOS Bible in the early 90s...that one alone made me feel like I had learned to write executables rather than simple command lists. Funny to see this project, really cool too.
[+] [-] PufPufPuf|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aa-jv|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qwerty456127|4 years ago|reply
It could and should be. Subjectively, according to my taste, all modern text-mode editors are either ugly or unintuitive or both. MS Edit (edit.com) was both nice-looking and intuitive but lacked modern features like extensibility, code completion, regex search, multi-cursor, UTF-8 support etc. I really wish there were modern MS Edit clones (for whatever OSes the developers would be interested in, I'm interested in many) implementing modern features I've mentioned.
[+] [-] xwdv|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sitharus|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aparticulate|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikewarot|4 years ago|reply
Build that OS, we really need it.
A perfect, leak proof sandbox would be a very valuable thing to have available.
[+] [-] smackeyacky|4 years ago|reply
Pretty secure. Horrible, but secure.
[+] [-] locusofself|4 years ago|reply
https://github.com/jneen/balls/tree/master/lib
[+] [-] LeonB|4 years ago|reply
From what I can tell Dos on Dope (Sept 2010) predates Bash on Balls (Jan 2011).
[+] [-] rizaxe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sergiomattei|4 years ago|reply
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Gzj723LkRJY
[+] [-] glassprongs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unixhero|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lproven|4 years ago|reply
I suppose you could argue that the Amiga equivalent of a batch file was a Rexx script?
But on PC-DOS 7, 7.01 or 7.1 you get a Rexx interpreter thrown in. :-)
https://liam-on-linux.livejournal.com/59703.html
[+] [-] hexagonsun|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeonB|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] annoyingnoob|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeonB|4 years ago|reply
I opted to gave an example of “copy con” and ^Z instead.
[+] [-] gfykvfyxgc|4 years ago|reply
It was simple and straightforward with keys that made sense.
[+] [-] EvanAnderson|4 years ago|reply
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe's_Own_Editor
[+] [-] digisign|4 years ago|reply
Also, freedos has a similar editor that has a few new features.
[+] [-] crate_barre|4 years ago|reply
This is kinda corny. It’s still edgy to make fun of model view controller?
[+] [-] LeonB|4 years ago|reply