Talk:Command-line interface

MSH

Command Shell monad won't be ready for inclusion in Longhorn, guys... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.164.105 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2005 (UTC)

Or, according to PowerShell § 1.0, maybe it was:

Named Windows PowerShell, version 1.0 was released in November 2006 for Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 SP1 and Windows Vista and as an optional component of Windows Server 2008.

and the article's been updated. Guy Harris (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

References

"I hate the command-line"

Well, obviously, I don't. However, I have removed the link by that name, becasue I don't think it's encyclopedic in nature. I also don't agree with the subject of it ("subject of it" = "I hate the command line") , but that wasn't the reason I removed it. I removed it becasue I don't think it was relavant to this article, it gave no important information about CLIs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nick Warren (talk • contribs) 04:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I had to remove it again, because someone put it back. It is one sided and it just doesn't need to be linked to in a Wikipedia article. Sorry. Now please, don't put it back. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Warren (talk • contribs) 06:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Prompt Examples

I'm referencing the multiple screenshots under the "Example of prompt system displays." card. The use of liquidprompt screenshots are bizarre and out of place in my opinion. Would it be worth taking them out, perhaps replacing them with more typical examples of bash and cmd.exe prompts?

I think it's worth nothing the user that added the screenshots, Nojhan, is the name of a maintainer on liquidprompt's GitHub repository. Think reeks of self-promotion to me. SuperShadowP1ay (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

I would also advocate using text examples rather than screen shots, as some of the screen shots are very hard to read. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Self documenting!

The claim Unlike a button or menu item in a GUI, a command line is typically self-documenting, stating exactly what the user wants done. is false for every OS I am familiar with, and the citation only addresses a specific CLI. The action implied by a common English word, or abbreviation, is not at all obvious and has to be learned for the specific CLI of interest. E.g., does a delete or remove command delete a file or only delete a link to the file? Does it only delete ordinary files or does it also delete directories?

In Unix-like systems, there are useful but highly unobvious features, e.g., using ` to insert the output of one command into another, using cat to display the contents of a file. In TSO, there are list and print commands with very different functions. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

@Chatul I agree that the current wording may be too broad for the cited reference.

The cited Cloud Foundry documentation describes the Cloud Foundry "cf" CLI as self-documenting and explains its built-in help functionality. However, that example does not necessarily establish that command-line interfaces generally are self-documenting.

Would it be more accurate to either narrow the statement to the specific functionality supported by the source or remove the generalisation unless a broader reliable source can be provided?

I suggest resolving the sourcing and wording issue before retaining the statement in its current form. Bollywarior (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

I would remove the claim entirely and add that features such as autocomplete and help reduce the cognitive load. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2026 (UTC)

References