Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Frank Slootweg Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-11,alt.comp.os.windows-10 Subject: Re: what is the fastest command line copy? Date: 2 Apr 2025 12:41:35 GMT Organization: NOYB Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <050kujpf36f33i4hspur5jg286m5r7fvn3@4ax.com> X-Trace: individual.net tYnVclSwgJ2tFGaoJ/VcBwsuYxrYQMSKndv767mZnjJJttsnup X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:iccSdQrwefohMPaEgEKT2Rfv4jI= sha256:lOygVGUdJhff0bUrNFnJnwy3EaTq5j9Mwgo6FZ1VOW0= User-Agent: tin/1.6.2-20030910 ("Pabbay") (UNIX) (CYGWIN_NT-10.0-WOW/2.8.0(0.309/5/3) (i686)) Hamster/2.0.2.2 Xref: csiph.com alt.comp.os.windows-11:18186 alt.comp.os.windows-10:183171 Paul wrote: > On Wed, 4/2/2025 2:50 AM, Steve Hayes wrote: > > On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 09:26:02 -0400, Newyana2 > > wrote: > > > >> On 4/1/2025 1:00 AM, Steve Hayes wrote: > >> > >>> I've hitherto uased batch files, which are a form of scripting. > >>> > >>> Is there a better tool to use for this? > >> > >> Big topic. I guess a lot of it depends on what you're used to. > >> For people who started with DOS, commandline feels natural. > >> And it can do some complex things. I try to avoid it because > >> it's relatively limited and combines coding with doing, by which > >> I mean, every time I want to do something I have to remember > >> or look up the exact syntax I'll need. So I have to write the code > >> every time, so to speak. The whole point of scripting for me is > >> so that I only have to do something once. Next time I only have > >> to double-click or drag-drop. > > > > I'm not sure what you're saying here. > > > > I have four batch files: > > > > dsk2flsh.bat > > flsh2lap.bat > > lap2flsh.bat > > flsh2dsk.bat > > > > I only have to remember the exact syntax when I make the batch files, > > and after that I I have to remember is the name of the batch file. > > When those .bat files copy things, do you check > the "error number" to see if the copy > was successful ? Note that (this part of) the discussion is for .bat files which mainly contain a single 'complicated' command, so the user does not have to remember the complicated command, but just the name of hir .bat file. For *such* a .bat file, if the command fails, it will give the same error(s) as if the command was typed manually, so there's no need for checking the error number. > Scripting is "programming", and the same things I would > have to check when writing a C language program, those > are still issues when running a (so-called OS) copy program. Yes, scripting - i.e. also .bat files - is "programming", but for simple .bat files, such are under discussion here, there's no need to make things more complicated than just putting the 'complicated' command in a .bat file. [...]