4 ms·

I'm pointing out flaws in Unix. The fact that other environments have different/worse flaws than Unix doesn't make Unix's flaws not flaws. The point is to thi

I'm pointing out flaws in Unix. The fact that other environments have different/worse flaws than Unix doesn't make Unix's flaws not flaws. The point is to think outside the box and stop being constrained by arbitrary decisions of the past, be they from Unix, Windows, or wherever. See my other response below about the text issue. It's not about 1 program having a text file, it's about managing all text files on your system that sucks, especially when you want them to interoperate in terms of data or automation, or even have some sort of consistency in expectation between them in human terms. The term "Text" implies data that is unspecified and unpredictable; in encoding, syntax and semantics; across various instances of it.

jstimpfle 10y ago
It is good that these are many separate files, because that avoids the problem of accumulating cruft that nobody can sort out. Also different syntax is possible for different problems. Contrast that to a key-value store with a fixed set of datatypes (say, bool/int/string) where invariably the complexity is pushed into string values (for example, screen geometry, Hotkey descriptions...). Nothing gained. The term "Text" has different cultural connotations. You can have a very strict encoding, and in fact in my perception many people agree today that "be liberal in what you accept" is wrong. Personally I am a nazi in what I accept, and it has worked out great so far. I don't think text is a problem with automation either. The easiest way to go is just to regenerate the whole config file when something changes. Also some formats can safely be transformed with e.g. sed.