3 ms·
http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/unix_prog_design.pdf http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/unix_prog_design.pdf Because it lets the implementation be independently reu
by vezzy-fnord 11y ago
http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/unix_prog_design.pdf http://harmful.cat-v.org/cat-v/unix_prog_design.pdf
Because it lets the implementation be independently reusable as a filter. Furthermore, there are some caveats about converting TAI64N to localtime, so having the admin be aware is desirable.
Having to pipe a program isn't "making life difficult for humans," I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
- joosters 11y agoAn odd choice of document to back up your argument. I can't think of any unix programs that use anything other than human readable dates and times in their outputs, for instance. Further, nothing is stopping any implementation be independently reusable, whatever the choice of format. That's an irrelevance. Essentially, it's not a technical decision. Trying to back up your preferences with tech reasons is besides the point. I just think that anything that makes it more difficult for a person to read the log files is a bad choice. If you can choose who has to do the extra work, human or computer, you should always let the computer do it.
- p4bl0 11y ago> I can't think of any unix programs that use anything other than human readable dates and times in their outputs, for instance. Maybe, but look at the date display code in the GNU core-utils for instance, it depends on the locale and everything, not quite minimalistic. I understand your point but it is inconsistent with the rest of djb's way. It does not mean that it is invalid in general, but that this "human-unreadable" log files in djb's code are actually a good idea in the mindset/framework of djb's code.