Re: [dev] print utility

From: Calvin Morrison <>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:19:03 -0400

On Mar 31, 2013 9:57 AM, "Charlie Kester" <> wrote:
> On 03/30/2013 23:49, Chris Down wrote:
>> I really don't see the need for a tool like this. Saying sed and awk are
>> not suckless is like saying C is not suckless -- sed and awk are
>> with a very specific domain, text processing. Perhaps you think *an
>> implementation* sucks. Good. GNU coreutils packages awful versions of
>> awk/sed. If you want to debate that these tools suck on a conceptual
>> you've completely lost me, because your idea to completely cripple the
>> from being able to do anything remotely interesting is downright
>> You have introduced ANOTHER binary to do a job that plenty of tools can
>> already do in a completely non-sucky way, which is the most sucky thing
>> could have possibly done. I can only hope that you've mistakenly posted
>> this one day early for April 1st.
>> I'm not usually this annoyed on this ML, even if it is the norm, but
>> Christ. If this is serious, I just don't even know what to say about it.
> I'm inclined to agree, and that's why I chose to treat it as a coding
exercise rather than a serious proposal for a new utility.
> As a coding exercise, it did bring out some interesting responses which
might help clarify what we mean by programs that suck less.

I brought it up also the make people think about how we easily accept tools
that already exist without scrutiny.

Sed does many things and many things well, but the unix philosophy is to do
one thing and one thing well.

Received on Sun Mar 31 2013 - 16:19:03 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun Mar 31 2013 - 16:24:04 CEST