2 ms·
Computer Science is looking like speaking french. A lot of rules. The first rule being to expect exceptions for every rules. If a natural language can work th
by julie1 11y ago
Computer Science is looking like speaking french.
A lot of rules. The first rule being to expect exceptions for every rules.
If a natural language can work this way, why not software industry?
Oh! I forgot uncertainties are bad and you may want to get things done in a way that is expected in a way every one understand without equivocation.
Are not inconsistent behaviour defeating the purpose of abstractions? It is an exception to a well expected result.
Cygwin is supposed to be having a low level consistent behaviour. At least that is what POSIX and unix are all about.
I don't see anything good coming from Cygwin and mingwin discarding this critic by a brush of pragmatism.
- xorblurb 11y agoYou don't but I do: you don't want to replace all your exec of e.g. "cp" with "cp.exe", .exe are not very often handled in real Unix environments, results of build without .exe under a real Unix would already clash with a .exe-less entry, Cygwin/MSys/MSys2 are there mainly for compat, and in this context the most compat you achieve (both way) is to handle .exe the way they do -- and there should be no exception. This leads to odd behaviors, which is unfortunate, but alternatives would lead to even more and/or worse ones.
- dave2000 11y ago"Computer Science is looking like speaking french. A lot of rules. The first rule being to expect exceptions for every rules. If a natural language can work this way, why not software industry?" Huh? They do both work the same way in that respect. Do you wish they did, or didn't?