Re: [dev] Simple made Easy (Rich Hickey at StrangeLoop)

From: Patrick Haller <>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 18:29:17 +0800

On 2011-10-22 09:35, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> the representation of data would be a concern of each program, not of
> the terminal, which would probably result in ugly.

Let's separate the concerns: UI and Data

UI = users should be able to be retarded && dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/face
This is a good thing.

Data = we don't have good backwards compatibility protection; we insert
another column output to `ls -al` and all hell breaks loose.

Our current workaround = run POSIX only commands and don't change.

> The type inference would be done per command, so cat(1) would be of a
> type such that if you were to try catting an image (directly) to wc(1)
> it would fail, because the types (Image, String) would not match. You
> could also have awesome higher-order functions, so 'map' would remove
> the need for find(1), etc.

It seems like too much; probably only need a few generic ones: string,
number, binary, list, hash.

Too many types will hurt us just like re-inventing tar as MIME as output
delimiter hurt us.

> we ought to optimise for effectiveness of use by the user

Absolutely; perhaps by reducing the output options of our programs. ;)

Received on Sat Oct 22 2011 - 12:29:17 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Oct 22 2011 - 12:48:03 CEST