I'm asking because PowerShell confuses me.

I've been trying to write some deployment scripts using PowerShell and I've been less than enthused by the result. I have a co-worker who loves PowerShell and defends it at every turn. Said co-worker claims PowerShell was never written to be a strong shell, but instead was written to:

a) Allow you to peek and poke at .NET assemblies on the command-line (why is this a reason for PowerShell to exist?)

b) To be hosted in .NET applications for automation, similar to DCOP in KDE and how Gnome is using CORBA.

c) to be treated as ".NET script" rather than as an actual shell (related to b).

I've always felt like Windows was missing a decent way to bang out automation scripts. cmd is too simplistic in many cases, and WSH is too obtuse (although the combination can be used successfully, I'm not a fan). When I first heard about PowerShell I felt like Windows was finally getting a decent shell that would be able to help with automation of many tasks, but recent experiences, and my co-worker, tell me otherwise.

To be clear, I don't take issue with the fact that it's built on .NET, or that it passes objects around rather than text (despite my Unix background :]), and I'm not arguing that PowerShell is useless, but from what I can see, it doesn't solve the problem I was hoping it would solve very well. As soon as you step outside of the .NET/Powershell world, things quit being nice and cozy for you.

So with all that out of the way, what problem did MS solve by creating PowerShell, or is it some political bastard child as I suspect? I've googled and haven't hit upon anything that sufficiently answered that for me, but the more citations the better.