> > My sense was that VBS became part of the WSH
> > because it was convenient and because people at
> > the time were wanting something to replace the
> > limited and GUI-less batch scripting.
> hehehe, too bad powershell was such a long way off back then...
You seem to have a thing for Power Shell.
Granted, Microsoft has always been brilliant
when it comes to manufacturing abstruseness
combined with crippling dependencies. And
abstruseness is very appealing to people who
want to feel like advanced insiders. (Boys
with secret decoder rings and MDs who say
"micturate" rather than "ur inate" -- simply to
confuse people -- are two good examples.)
One might even describe abstruseness as
a cornerstone of Microsoft's business. Their
partial, semi-literate docs and constantly
changing "technologies" have spawned a whole
industry of classes, books and "certifications".
Now Microsoft has invented "New DOS", which
only runs on XP SP2+ and requires .Net.
So what are you doing hanging around here
when you could be off playing with New DOS?
Before you go, though, could you explain to me
how to write a script block in a HTA with New DOS,
just in case I ever decide to limit my scripting to
what runs on Windows Xtra Problems SP2?
Now that you've pointed out just how pedestrian
VBScript is, I feel a bit silly at the lack of abstruseness
in my HTAs. I think I should add some pipes, switches,
and maybe a few obscure tidbits from the outer edge
of my keyboard.
All kidding aside, though, why not just use what works
for you and appreciate the different strengths/weaknesses?
A man might learn to use chopsticks and feel that he's very
sophisticated for having mastered them. But chopsticks
are designed for eating from a bowl. The chopstick master
who won't use a fork when eating from a plate is just a
silly aesthete with a lot of food in his lap.