Re: [dev] print utility

From: KarlOskar Rikås <kalle97r_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:21:15 +0200

Have you even read TUPE?
On Mar 31, 2013 4:19 PM, "Calvin Morrison" <mutantturkey_AT_gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Mar 31, 2013 9:57 AM, "Charlie Kester" <corky1951_AT_comcast.net> 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
> languages
> >> 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
> level,
> >> you've completely lost me, because your idea to completely cripple the
> user
> >> from being able to do anything remotely interesting is downright
> baffling.
> >>
> >> 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
> you
> >> 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.
>
> Calvin
>
Received on Sun Mar 31 2013 - 16:21:15 CEST