Re: [dev] less(1) replacement?

From: Hadrien Lacour <hadrien.lacour_AT_posteo.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2017 10:56:49 +0200

On Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 03:47:52AM +0200, isabella parakiss wrote:
> On 8/27/17, Laslo Hunhold <dev_AT_frign.de> wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 23:59:27 +0200
> > isabella parakiss <izaberina_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hey Isabella,
> >
> >> https://i.imgur.com/79U7mcO.png
> >> side by side screenshot against less
> >> your face looks hideous
> >
> > he did not mean the interface, but the code itself. And I personally
> > concur that this rather belongs to the uglier realm of bash-scripts.
> > Please refrain from personal insults.
> >
> > It's impressive how it has been made, but I'm sure "native" solutions
> > in C or other compiled languages should be preferred. Paging is not a
> > too difficult thing to solve, if I may make this statement.
> >
> > With best regards
> >
> > Laslo
> >
> > --
> > Laslo Hunhold <dev_AT_frign.de>
> >
> >
>
>
> cool, let me just rewrite it in c++
> or in javascript and then create a native solution with electron
>
>
> name 3 reasons why compiled languages should be preferred, but of course
> performance can't be in your list
>
>
> also it's funny that you talk about personal insults after your rape threats
> go fuck a cactus
>

The point of using a compiled language is to avoid useless dependencies, even
if performances also count.
To be honest, it'd be more acceptable if it didn't rely on the most bloated
shell ever (baring fish, maybe). POSIX sh isn't that hard.
Received on Sun Aug 27 2017 - 10:56:49 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Aug 27 2017 - 11:00:17 CEST